Informing the Nation: Federal InformationDissemination in an Electronic Age

October 1988

NTIS order #PB89-114243GPO stock #052-003-01130-1

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Informing the Nation: Federal In-formation Dissemination in an Electronic Age, OTA-C IT-396 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, October 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600567

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

Foreword

Federal information is essential to public understanding of many issues facing Congressand the Nation, and is used by all sectors of society. Technological advances are opening upmany new and potentially cost-effective ways to collect, manage, and disseminate this information.Although traditional ink-on-paper publications will continue to meet important needs for theforeseeable future, many types of Federal information—such as statistical, reference, and scien-tific and technical-are well suited to electronic storage and dissemination. For example, an entireyear’s worth of the Congressional Record or several Bureau of the Census statistical series canbe placed on one compact optical disk that can be easily read with a low-cost reader and basicmicrocomputer. Press releases, weather and crop bulletins, and economic or trade indices canbe disseminated immediately via electronic bulletin boards or online information systems.

This report addresses the opportunities to improve the dissemination of Federal information.It also highlights two major problems: maintaining equity in public access to Federal informationin electronic formats, and defining the respective roles of Federal agencies and the private sectorin the electronic dissemination process. The report focuses on current and future roles of theU.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and Superintendent of Documents, the Depository Li-brary Program (administered by GPO), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).In addition, this report examines electronic dissemination of congressional information, theFreedom of Information Act in an electronic environment, and electronic dissemination of gov-ernment information to the press.

In conducting this assessment, OTA drew on expertise and perspectives from numeroussources in and outside of the government. OTA received special assistance from the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) for the surveys of Federal information dissemination practices andFederal information users, from GPO with respect to Federal printing and related disseminationactivities, and from NTIS with regard to dissemination of scientific and technical information.OTA appreciates the participation of the advisory panelists, contractors, working group partici-pants, Federal agency officials and Federal information users who responded to the GAO surveys,and members of the library, academic, business, labor, consumer, and Federal agency communities,among others, who helped bring this report to fruition.

The report responds to an initial request from the Joint Committee on Printing and subsequentexpressions of interest from the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agri-culture of the House Committee on Government Operations, the House Committee on Science,Space, and Technology, the Committee on House Administration, and the Subcommittee onLegislative of the House Committee on Appropriations.

The report is solely the responsibility of OTA, not of those who assisted us in the assess-ment or of the congressional committees who requested or endorsed the undertaking of the study.

.,,///

Informing the Nation Advisory Panel

Marvin Sirbu, ChairmanAssociate Professor, Carnegie-Mellon University

Ben Bagdikian Paul P. MassaDean and Chairman President & Chief Executive OfficerGraduate School of Journalism Congressional Information Service, Inc.University of California at Berkeley James A. NelsonNolan Bowie State Librarian and CommissionerAssistant Professor of Communications Kentucky Department for Libraries andTemple University Archives

Tom DaviesGeneral ManagerSCT Corp.

Miriam DrakeDirector of LibrariesGeorgia Institute of Technology

Lee FelsensteinPresidentGolemics, Inc.

Ron Plesser, Esq.Nash, Railsback, and Plesser

Howard ResnikoffPresidentAware, Inc.

Katherine D. SeelmanDirector of CommunicationsMassachusetts Commission for the Deaf

and Hard of Hearing

James K. Galbraith Fran SpigaiAssociate Professor of Economics PresidentLBJ School of Public Affairs Database Services, Inc.

Mary Gardiner-Jones Susan TolchinPresident Professor of Public AdministrationConsumer Interest Research Institute The George Washington University

Robert Gibson, Jr.Head Librarian (retired)General Motors Technical Center

John A, JenkinsGeneral ManagerBNA On-Line

Earl C. JosephPresidentAnticipatory Sciences Inc.

Myer KutzExecutive PublisherJohn Wiley and Sons

Congressional Agency Participants

Robert L. ChartrandSenior Specialist in Information Policy and

Technology (retired)Congressional Research Service

Vincent DeSantiGroup DirectorGeneral Accounting Office

Harold C, RelyeaSpecialist in American National

GovernmentCongressional Research Service

NOTE: OTA gratefully acknowledges the members of this advisory panel for their valuable assistance and thoughtfuladvice. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumesfull responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

.——

OTA INFORMING THE NATION ASSESSMENT STAFF*

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Fred W. Weingarten, Program ManagerCommumication and Information Technologies

Project Staff**

Fred B. Wood, Project Director

Prudence S. Adler, Assistant Project

Jamie A. Grodsky, Analyst

Carol S. Nezzo, Analyst

Director

Other OTA Staff Contributors

Jean Smith

Darlene Wong

Administrative Staff

Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant

Rebecca Battle, Secretary

Karolyn Swauger, Secretary

Publishing Staff

Kathie S. Boss, Publishing OfficerChip Moore, Publishing Assistant

Debra Datcher Cheryl DavisDorinda Edmondson Steve KettlerTed Williams Susan Zimmerman

*see appendix A for acknowledgments of GPO, GAO, and NTIS staff, agency officials, workshop p~ticipants. reviewers, andothers who participated in the study.

**See appendix B for OTA project staff responsibilities.

v

Contractors

Brenda DervinOhio State University

Stephen FrantzichCongressional Data Associates

Henry FreedmanConsultant

Gregory GiebelUniversity of the District of Columbia

Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, andBarbara Lewton

University of Washington

Peter HernonSimmons College

Earl JosephAnticipatory Sciences, Inc.

Charles McClureSyracuse University

Judith E. MyersUniversity of Houston Library

Thomas P. RileyRiley Information Services

Frank J. RomanoConsultant

Barry M. SchaefferConsultant

Jacob W. UlvilaDecision Science Consortium, Inc.

Carol Watts, Sarah Kadec, and Dorothy WeedWashington Information Network

Contents

Chapter Page

CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Problems and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Technical Information Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Technical Information Service/Superintendent of Documents. . . . . . . .Depository Libraries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical/Management Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Statutory/Oversight Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Legislative Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL INFORMATIONDISSEMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Size and Scope of Federal Information Dissemination Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . .Technological Initiatives by Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Institutional Infrastructure for Federal Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3: KEY TECHNOLOGY TRENDS RELEVANT TO FEDERALINFORMATION DISSEMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Systems Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Microcomputer Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Continuing Role of Paper and Microform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Desktop Publishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High-End Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic Forms Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computer Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scanners and Printers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Online Information Retrieval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expert Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4:ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE GOVERNMENTPRINTING OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Traditional GPO-Centralized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Demand for Traditional GPO Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impacts of Medium-Term Reductions in

Traditional Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3358

1013141417192021

272728283236

45454747484951515254545557575860616364

71717374

76

vii

Page

Traditional GPO–Legislative BranchOnly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Financial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Labor Force Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Other Vulnerabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Electronic GPO–Decentralized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Trends in Technology and Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

CHAPTER 5:AN ELECTRONIC NATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION SERVICE AND NTIS/SUPERINTENDENT OFDOCUMENTS COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............107

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................107Role and Current Status of NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....108Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............111

Trends in Demand and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................111Possible New Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , .116

NTIS/SupDocs Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. ....119Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..119Disadvantages and Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................121

CHAPTER 6: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LIBRARIES, AND THEFEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................127Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...128Role of Information Technologies in Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......131

Use of Specific Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132Online Database Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133Library Communication Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............134Electronic Bulletin Boards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................135Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................136Facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................137Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................138

Federal Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............138Origins and Operations of the Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . ......138Format of Depository Library Materials: Paperv. Microfiche . ............140Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142Online Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........144

CHAPTER 7: ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE DEPOSITORYLIBRARY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................149Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........151Alternative I: Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...151Alternative II: Electronic Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..153

A Subalternative for Distributing Electronic Formats. . ..................157Alternative III: Reorganized Electronic Depository System . . . . . . . . . . ......158Disseminating Electronic Information Products–Two Case Studies. . ........160

Congressional Record on CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....161Federal Register Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....164

Issues Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......171Dissemination Formats in the Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..171Changing Costs of the Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......173

,.,VII!

PageReorganized Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................175Changing Roles of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

CHAPTER 8: ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION OF CONGRESSIONALINFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .....183

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,183Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...184Current Methods of congressional Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . .. ...185Congressional Information Products Case Studies:

Congressional Record and Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....187Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

Dissemination Practices of congressional Support Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192Office of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................192General Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...194Congressional Research Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................195

Discussion of crosscutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196Benefits of Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....196Congressional Responsibility for Electronic Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..199Need for an Index to Congressional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Role of GPO.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................201Need for Congressional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............202

CHAPTER9: THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IN ANELECTRONIC AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........,,,207

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..207Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............209Applicability of FOIA to Electronic Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........210

Computerized Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...210Other Media.. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .............211

Defining the Limits of Searching Under FOIA . ..........................213Traditional Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..213In the Computer Context: The Distinction Between Searching and

Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................215Determining the Format of Information Delivered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...221

Expanding the Legal Frontiers: Public Access to Software andOnline Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................222Online Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........223

Fee Assessment and Fee Waivers: Charged Issues in an Age ofElectronic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....225

New Technologies and the Need for Amending FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . ...........226Electronic Information Technologies Are Obscuring the Boundary

Between Record and Nonrecord Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........228Computers Are Facilitating Faster and More Complex Searches,

Thereby Encouraging a Broader Definition of a“Reasonable’ ’Search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............229

Electronic FOIA Requests Can Be Incompatible With the WaysAgencies Collect and Organize Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .230

Computer Searching Raises New Staffing and Budgetary Problems,as Well as Opportunities for Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

Federal Agencies Are Using Information Products Whose Statusis Unclear Under FOIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

PagePaper Printouts of Electronic Information May Not Satisfy

Public Access Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............234Computers Are Prompting New Discussion About the Basic

Purposes of FOIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............236

CHAPTER 1O:THE ELECTRONIC PRESS RELEASE ANDGOVERNMENT-PRESS RELATIONSHIPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .239

Slummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................239Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............240Functions and Problems of Agency Press Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...241Status of Automation in Federal Agency Press Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......242

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................242U.S. Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............243White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............,244Bureau of Labor Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..244The Federal Election Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...244

Status of Automation in Press Newsrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........245Challenges to Government/Press Automated Dissemination . ...............247

Need for Coordination. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .247Need for Improved Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. ...247Need for Completeness and Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......247Private Contracting and Price Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..247Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........248

Technological and Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...248Technological Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ...248Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........250

CHAPTER 11: FEDERAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION POLICY INAN ELECTRONIC AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...255

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255Renewed Commitment to Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............257Clarification of Governmentwide Information Dissemination Policy . .........261

Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........261Electronic v. Paper Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264Possible Congressional Actions . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

Clarification of Institutional Roles and Responsibilities . ...................271Improvements in Information Dissemination Management . ................276

Electronic Publishing/Dissemination Technical Standards. . ...............276Governmentwide Information Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277Government Information Dissemination Innovation

Centers/Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......278Revised Information Resources and Personnel Management . .............280

Improvements in Conventional Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283Cost.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............288Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....288Cost Estimating and Billing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........289General Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................289

CHAPTER 12: SETTING FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THESUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS AND NATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........295

x

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................295Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296The Competitive Electronic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296Institutional Alternatives for SupDocs and NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300Centralizing Government Electronic Information Dissemination . . . . . 300Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3oIReorganizing SupDocs as Part of a Legislative Printing Office . ...........303Consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office” or Government Corporation . .........305Authorizing SupDocs or the Consolidated SupDocs/NTISto Produce

and Disseminate Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307Broader Implications of SupDocs/NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309Government Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309Agency Missions and the Role of SupDocs and NTIS... . ................310Private Sector Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .312Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316

APPENDIXA: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...323APPENDIX B: CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330APPENDIX C:LIST OF CONTRACTOR REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331APPENDIXD: SOME KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS . ..............332

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... ... sO..... 5Problems and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10National Technical Information Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13National Technical Information Service/Superintendent of Documents . . . . 14Depository Libraries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Technical/Management Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Statutory/Oversight Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Legislative Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

BoxesBox PageA. Information, the Lifeblood of the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4B. General Accounting Office Surveysof Federal Agencies and

Federal Information Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6C. Some Opportunities for Productivity Improvement or Cost Avoidance

Through Electronic Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9D. National Technical Information Service and Superintendent

of Documents, How They Compare.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15E. The Importance of Text Markup and Page Description Standards for

Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

TablesTable Page

l-1. Civilian Departmental Agency Dissemination of StatisticalInformation, by Format Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I-Z. Civilian Departmental Agency Dissemination of Scientific andTechnical Information, by Format Used, Current and Projected . . . . 6

l-3. Depository Library Demand for Federal Information,by Type and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

l-4. Civilian Departmental Agency Use of Selected ElectronicPublishing-Related Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

l-5. GPO Workload Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12l-6. Trends in Sales of Selected NTIS Products, Fiscal Years,

1980, 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13l-7. Trends in New Titles Received byNTIS, Fiscal Years, 1983, 1987 . . 13l-8. Depository Library Demand for Federal Information in

Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16l-9. Depository Library Access to Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

l-10. Federal Agency Policies on Electronic Information Dissemination . . . 19

Chapter 1

Summary

INTRODUCTION

If a Nation expects to be ignorant and freein a state of civilization, it expects what neverwas and never will be . . . if we are to guardagainst ignorance and remain free, it is theresponsibility of every American to be informed.

–Thomas Jefferson, Julv 6, 1816

Federal information is used by all sectors ofsociety. For example, the business and finan-cial communities look to price levels and gov-ernment indicators of economic activity asimportant inputs to business planning and in-vestment decisions. Similarly, the agriculturalcommunity regularly uses government cropand weather bulletins, as well as forecasts, toaid in scheduling crop planting. Scientists andengineers benefit from technical informationgenerated by federally conducted or sponsoredresearch in areas like superconductors, super-computers, and solar energy. Indeed, informa-tion generated by the Federal Governmentspans the entire spectrum of issues and pro-grams relevant to agency missions-from pub-lic health crises, such as AIDs; to environ-mental problems, such as hazardous wastedisposal and water pollution; to demographicand employment trends. And at the most basiclevel, information about governmental proc-esses—such as the Congressional Record forCongress and the Federal Re~”ster for the ex-ecutive branch agencies—is used by citizensand organizations that wish to monitor andparticipate in a wide range of governmentactivities.

For most of this Nation’s history, Federalinformation has been disseminated predomi-nantly in the form of paper documents and,in recent decades, to a lesser extent in micro-fiche. However, in the last few years, techno-logical advances have resulted in a rapid in-crease in the use of electronic formats forFederal information dissemination. While the

use of electronic technology offers many newopportunities for cost-effective dissemination,serious conflicts have arisen over how to main-tain and strengthen public access to govern-ment information and balance the roles of in-dividual Federal agencies, governmentwidedissemination mechanisms, and the privatesector.

OTA has concluded that congressional actionis urgently needed to resolve Federal informa-tion dissemination issues and to set the direc-tion of Federal activities for years to come. Thegovernment is at a crucial point where opportu-nities presented by the information technologies,such as productivity and cost-effectiveness im-provements, are substantial. However, thestakes, including preservation andlor enhance-ment of public access to government informa-tion plus maintenance of the fiscal and adminis-trative responsibilities of the agencies, are highand need to be carefully balanced by Congress.

Congress has enacted numerous laws thatemphasize the importance of broad public ac-cess to Federal information (such as the Print-ing Act of 1895, Depository Library Act of1962, Freedom of Information Act of 1966, andPaperwork Reduction Act of 1980) and assignvarious information dissemination functionsto individual Federal agencies (see box A) andgovernmentwide clearinghouses. The latter in-clude principally the Superintendent of Docu-ments (SupDocs) at the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO), Depository Library Pro-gram (DLP) also at GPO, National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS), and Consumer In-formation Center (CIC). However, the exist-ing statutory and institutional framework wasestablished by Congress largely during the pre-electronic era. It is important, therefore, thatCongress review this framework to determinewhat actions are needed to ensure that legis-lative intent is carried out in an electronic envi-ronment and whether any adjustments in legis-lative objectives or legislation are needed.

3

4

Box A.—Information, the Lifeblood of the Federal Government

Information is truly the lifeblood of many Federal Government programs and activitiesand is essential to the implementation of agency missions as well as to informed public debateconcerning such programs and activities. Congress has enacted hundreds of specific laws thatassign information dissemination and related functions to Federal agencies. Some illustrativelaws include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Public Law 96-374, Education Act Amendments of 1980, Department of Education toestablish an information clearinghouse for the handicapped;Public Law 96-399, Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, Departmentof Housing and Urban Development to collect and report data on sales prices for newhomes;Public Law 96-482, Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1979, Environmental Pro-tection Agency to collect, maintain, and disseminate information on energy and materi-als conservation and recovery from solid waste;Public Law 97-98, Agriculture and Food Act, Department of Agriculture to develop anagricultural land resources information system and to establish relations with foreignagricultural information systems;Public Law 97-290, Export Trading Company Act of 1982, Department of Commerceto disseminate information on export trading;Public Law 98-362, Small Business Computer Crime Prevention Act, Small BusinessAdministration to establish an information resource center on computer crime;Public Law 99-412, Conservation Service Reform Act of 1985, Department of Energyto disseminate information annually to States and public utilities on residential energyconservation; andPublic Law 99-570, National Antidrug Reorganization and Coordination Act, Depart-ment of Health and Human Services to establish a clearinghouse for alcohol and drugabuse information.

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

This assessment presents information andanalyses on a broad range of topics and issues.It is intended to:

●

●

help both Congress and the Nation bet-ter understand Federal information dis-semination in an electronic age; andassist Congress in implementing improve-ments in Federal information dissemina-tion activities.

The focus of this report is on public infor-mation, that is, Federal information that is orshould be in the public domain and is not sub-ject to exemption under the Freedom of Infor-mation Act (e.g., due to privacy, security, or

confidentiality considerations). The report fo-cuses on the process of information dissemi-nation, including the Federal Government’stechnical and institutional infrastructure fordissemination, not on information collection(although also important). The report consid-ers a wide range of information formats—frompaper and microfiche to computer tapes anddiskettes, compact disks, and online databases.And the report covers all major types of Fed-eral information at a general level—includingagency reports and pamphlets, rules and reg-ulations, periodicals and bibliographies, sta-tistical information, and scientific and techni-cal information, among others.

5

OPPORTUNITIES

The Federal Government today stands at amajor crossroads with respect to the future ofFederal information dissemination. Techno-logical advances have opened up many new andpotentially cost-effective ways to disseminateFederal information, especially those types ofinformation (such as bibliographic, reference,statistical, and scientific and technical) that areparticularly well suited to electronic formats.

OTA expects several key underlying tech-nical trends to continue unabated for at leastthe next 3 to 5 years and 10 years or more inmany cases. These include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

continued, steady improvement in theprice/performance of microcomputers,nonimpact printers, scanners, and desk-top software;rapid proliferation of desktop publishingsystems and continued improvement inthe ability of desktop systems to producehigher quality, more complex documents;rapid growth in networking of desktopand high-end systems, nonimpactprinters, and phototypesetters used formore complex, higher volume, and/or larg-er institutional applications;continued increase in the number and useof computerized online information serv-ices and online information gateways (thatprovide the channels for information ex-change), and continued advances in theunderlying computer and telecommunica-tion technologies;rapid advances in optical disk technologiesand applications, including acceleratingpenetration of CD-ROM (compact diskread-only memory), maturation of WORM(write once read many times) and erasa-ble optical disks, plus emergence of CD-I(compact disk interactive, with audio,video, graphics, textual, and software ca-pabilities all on one disk); andrapid advances in the development of ex-pert systems applicable to many aspectsof information dissemination—includingtechnical writing, indexing, informationretrieval, and printing management.

Many individual Federal agencies alreadyare experimenting with and increasingly im-plementing information dissemination via elec-tronic bulletin boards, floppy disks, compactoptical disks, desktop publishing, and elec-tronic printing-on-demand. For example, sta-tistical data are highly suited to electronic for-mats, and, based on the results of the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) survey of Federalagencies (see box B), about one-third of thecivilian departmental agencies use magnetictape or disks, one-fifth floppy disks and elec-tronic data transfer, and one-tenth electronicmail for dissemination of statistical data (seeTable l-l). By comparison, about three-fourthsof the agencies use paper and roughly one tenthuse microfiche for disseminating statisticaldata. Overall, civilian agencies (departmentaland independent) reported over 7,500 informa-tion products disseminated electronically, asof fiscal year 1987. The number of civilianagency publications in paper format appearsto be declining slowly, while the number of elec-tronic products has more than tripled over thepast 4 years. The GAO survey results suggestthat this trend will continue. For example, by1990, agency use of electronic mail and bulle-tin boards, floppy disks, and compact opticaldisks in disseminating scientific and techni-cal information is expected to more than dou-ble, on the average, as shown in Table 1-2.

With respect to demand for Federal infor-mation, OTA has concluded that, for the fore-seeable future, paper will continue to be thepreferred format for many purposes, such asbrowsing government reports, and microfichewill continue to be used for document storageand archival purposes. However, OTA’S 3- to 5-year outlook for the dissemination of Federalinformation indicates that overall demand forpaper formats will decline modestly and the de-mand for microfiche will drop rather markedly,while the demand for electronic formats will in-crease dramatically.

There already is a significant demand forFederal information in electronic formats amonguser groups, and particularly within the library

6

Box B.—General Accounting Office Surveys of Federal Agencies and Federal Information Users

GAO, at the request of the Joint Committee on Printing, conducted several surveys that pro-vided important input to the OTA report. Copies of the complete results are available from GAO.

Federal agency survey. In 1987, GAO surveyed all 13 cabinet-level departments and 48 majorindependent agencies with respect to information dissemination practices, technologies, budgets,plans, and policies. GAO asked department or agency senior Information Resources Managementofficials to coordinate the response but to consult with agency printing officers, librarians, pub-lishers, and public information officers, among others. GAO asked that the cabinet departmentsprovide a separate response for each major subdivision or component, such as bureaus or adminis-trations. GAO received responses from 114 civilian departmental components, 11 Department ofDefense components, and 48 independent agencies. GAO edited responses for completeness andinternal consistency but did not independently verify their accuracy.

Overall, the survey results are very informative; however, the survey responses were unauditedand undocumented. Also, it is unclear how the agency responses were developed, especially withrespect to evaluative questions. Nonetheless, the results present a useful overall picture of agencyinformation dissemination activities.

Federal information user surveys, In 1987-1988, GAO surveyed four user groups: (1) GPO deposi-tory libraries; (2) other libraries; (3) scientific and technical associations; and (4) general associa-tions. These groups were surveyed with respect to current and desired types and formats of Federalinformation.

As with the Federal agency survey, the results of the user surveys were not verified, and theexact process by which the responses were provided is not known. Also, the sampling error couldbe high, but it does not affect the OTA analysis since OTA has emphasized only the major trendsand findings that emerged from these surveys.

Table 1-1 .—Civilian Departmental AgencyDissemination of Statistical Information,

by Format Used

especially among the more technically sophis-ticated user groups.

Percent of agenciesFormat used responding

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . 4Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1aTOtalS more than 100 percent since many agencies use more than one format

SOURCE’ General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

community, private industry, Federal agenciesthemselves, and various groups with special-ized needs (such as educators, researchers, anddisabled persons). OTA projects that this de-mand will rise sharply over the next few years,

Table l-2.—Civilian Departmental AgencyDissemination of Scientific and Technical Information,

by Format Used, Current and Projected

Percent of agenciesresponding

Use inUse nextnow 3 years a Percent

Format (1987) (by 1990) change

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 15.8 + 159Electronic bulletin board . . . . . 6.1 10.5 +72Electronic data transfer . . . . . . 14.9 18.4 +24Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 16.7 +19Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 16.7 +90Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . — 8.8 +%alculated by adding the percentage of agencies now (as of 1987) using the

format indicated to the number who expect to use the format within the next3 years (by 1990) Assumes that agencies currently using a format will continueto do SO,

SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

7

GPO computer room

The results of the GAO survey of Federal in-formation users document this likely trend indemand. For example, the depository librarycommunity (as intermediaries reflecting usersand user information needs in university, re-

search, Federal, State, local, and public libraries)indicated a strong preference for obtaining in-creasing percentages of Federal informationin electronic form and declining percentagesin paper and microfiche. The survey results for318 depository libraries out of a sample of 451(34 of the 51 regional depositories and 284 ofthe 400 selective depository libraries sampled)are highlighted in Table 1-3. These results showthat, by and large, the depository library com-munit y desires or anticipates decreases in useof paper and microfiche formats and signifi-cant increases in online databases and compactoptical disks. Trends for other surveyed seg-ments of the Federal information user commu-nity (e.g., nondepository libraries, scientificand technical associations) are not so dramatic,but show a similar pattern.

Electronic publishing and related technol-ogies, when coupled with essential technical

Table l-3.— Depository Library Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of libraries responding

DemandDemand in next Percent

Type of information Format now 3 years change

Congressional Recordlhearingslreports/ bi 11s paper 271 234 –14

microfiche 274 225 –18online database 59 132 + 124floppy disk o 27 +compact optical disk 3 112 + 3600

Scientific and technical reports/information paper 244 172 –17

microfiche 212 159 –22online database 76 95 +25floppy disk 1 27 + 2600compact optical disk 9 78 + 770

Press releases/bulletins paper 246 183 –26microfiche 39 35 –10electronic mail or 9 51 +467

bulletin boardonline database 24 50 + 108compact optical disk 1 18 + 1700

paper 309 270 –13microfiche 241 134 –44electronic mail or 12 27 + 125

bulletin boardonline database 103 158 +53magnetic tape/disk 11 25 + 127floppy disk 12 65 +442videodisk o 12 +compact optical disk 15 140 + 833

SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988.

Statistical data

8

standards, offer the near-term prospect for in-tegrated information systems utilizing the “in-formation life cycle” concept. Here, the collec-tion, processing, storage, and dissemination(and ultimately retention or archiving) of in-formation in multiple formats (paper, micro-form, and electronic) are viewed and imple-mented as interrelated functions rather thanseparate, unrelated activities. The life cycleconcept offers the prospect of improvementsin Federal productivity or cost avoidancethrough increased efficiencies in the publish-ing of government reports, reduced paper andpostage costs, and the like (see box C).

The Federal Government should be able torealize at least a significant portion of theproductivity improvements demonstrated by

private business users. Private firms typicallyreport 30 to 50 percent productivity improve-ment with a payback on investment in the 2-to 3-year range. The Federal Governmentspends, conservatively, $6 billion per year oninformation dissemination (not including thecost of collection, processing, or a proratedshare of agency automation). Thus, produc-tivity improvements on the order of hundredsof millions of dollars per year appear to be read-ily achievable. In addition, the substantial on-going investment by Federal mission agenciesin agency automation, if planned and imple-mented properly, can incorporate multi-formatinformation dissemination at little additionalmarginal cost, compared to the total cost ofautomation, and with the potential for net costsavings in agency information functions.

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGESTechnological advances are creating a num-

ber of problems and challenges with respectto Federal information dissemination:

●

●

●

At a fundamental level, electronic technol-ogy is changing or even eliminating manydistinctions between reports, publications,databases, records, and the like, in waysnot anticipated by existing statutes andpolicies. A rapidly growing percentage ofFederal information exists at some pointin an electronic form on a computerizedsystem as part of “seamless web” of in-formation activities.Electronic technology permits informationdissemination on a decentralized basis thatis cost-effective at low levels of demand,but in ways that may challenge tradition-al roles, responsibilities, and policies. Incontrast, conventional ink-on-paper print-ing technology tends to be cost-effectivewith more centralized production and dis-tribution and higher levels of demand.Electronic technology is eroding the institu-tional roles of governmentwide informationdissemination agencies. While many Fed-

eral agencies disseminate at least some oftheir information in electronic formats,the central governmentwide dissemina-tion mechanisms (SupDocs, DLP, NTIS,and CIC) are presently limited largely topaper or paper and microfiche formatsand thus disseminate a declining portionof Federal information.Technology has outpaced the major govern-mentwide statutes that apply to Federalinformation dissemination. The PrintingAct of 1895, Depository Library Act of1962, and Freedom of Information Act of1966 predate the era of electronic dissem-ination, and have not been updated to ex-plicitly reflect electronic as well as paperformats. The Paperwork Reduction Actof 1980 was amended in 1986 to includeinformation dissemination within its scope,but substantive statutory guidance onelectronic information dissemination perse is minimal.The advent of electronic disseminationraises new equity concerns since, to the ex-tent electronic formats have distinct ad-

9

Box C.–Some Opportunities for ProductivityImprovement or Cost Avoidance Through

Electronic Technology

● Electronic publishing—facilitates the document revision proc-

ess by minimizing rekey boarding andgraphics redesign;

–produces documents that are generallyfound to be more attractive and easierto read;

—reduces the total publishing time typi-cally by 25 to 50 percent;

—reduces the total number of documentpages typically by 35 to 50 percent,since typeset pages contain more textthan typewritten pages;

—reduces the costs for paper and post-age for hard copy print runs; and

—can achieve rates of return on invest-ment of up to 30 to 50 percent and pay-back periods of 2 to 3 years or less.

● Compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM)—can store and disseminate large amounts

of information at very low cost;—is best suited for statistical, reference,

technical, and other information thatdoes not require frequent updates;

—can store up to the equivalent of about250,000 pages of typewritten, double-spaced text on one disk, or the equiva-lent of about 1,500 single-sided floppydisks or about 10 of the 1,600 bits-per-inch magnetic computer tapes;

—can reduce the cost of disseminationby an order of magnitude compared tomagnetic tapes and up to two ordersof magnitude compared to paper doc-uments (a typical estimate is that thesame amount of information that couldbe disseminated for $50 per week onCD-ROM would cost $345 per week onmagnetic tapes and $2,250 per week inpaper); and

—permits searching, retrieval, and ma-nipulation of the data in ways simplynot possible with paper (or microfiche)formats.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

●

●

●

vantages (e.g., in terms of timeliness,searchability), those without electronic ac-cess are disadvantaged. In general, thelibrary, research, media, public interest,consumer, and State/local governmentcommunities, among others, argue thatthe Federal Government has a responsi-bility to assure equity of access to Fed-eral information in electronic formats aswell as in paper. These groups contendthat they are or will increasingly be dis-advantaged to the extent that Federal in-formation in electronic form is not availablethrough normal channels.Technological advances complicate the Fed-eral Government’s relationships with thecommercial information industry. Whilethose companies that market repackagedor enhanced Federal information benefitfrom access to electronic formats, someof these firms are concerned about possi-ble adverse effects of government compe-tition. Efforts by the Office of Manage-ment and Budget (OMB) to establishpolicy in this area have proven to be con-troversial. Also, the privatization of ma-jor Federal information dissemination ac-tivities (such as the NTIS clearinghouse)has not yet been demonstrated to be ei-ther cost-effective or beneficial for impor-tant governmental functions.OMB and industry representatives supportgovernment dissemination of Federal infor-mation in raw electronic form without soft-ware enhancements or searching aids, butoppose government dissemination of en-hanced or “value-added” information. Thisconflicts with the long-established govern-ment role in producing and disseminatingvalue-added information products in pa-per format and its logical extension toelectronic formats. Existing policy doesnot define “value-added’ or specify underwhat conditions value-added electronicinformation products are inherently orappropriately governmental versus com-mercial in nature.In general information industry represent-

10

atives strongly favor open government andunimpeded and nondiscriminatory access toFederal information for philosophical andcompetitive fairness reasons (i.e., so thatno single vendor has a captive or monop-oly position over Federal information). Inthese respects, the industry shares com-mon ground with the library, research, andpress communities, among others.

The absence of congressional action to ad-dress these issues is likely to result in:

●

●

●

●

●

●

continuing erosion in overall equity of pub-lic access to Federal information,continuing confusion over institutionalroles and responsibilities,a significant time and dollar cost to thegovernment and various stakeholders inseemingly endless debate over statutoryinterpretation and legislative intent,inefficiency and excessive duplication inelectronic information disseminationresearch and pilot-testing,inability to capture learning from experi-ence and economies of scale, andfailure to realize the significant opportu-nities for cost-effective improvements inoverall public access to Federal information.

OTA concluded that the government needs toset in motion a comprehensive planning processfor creatively exploring the long-term future (e.g.,10 to 20 years from now) when the informationinfrastructure of the public and private sectorscould be quite different. At the same time, thegovernment needs to provide short-term direc-

tion to existing agencies and institutions withrespect to electronic information dissemination.A central challenge is setting future directionsfor the governmentwide information dissemi-nation institutions.

Any electronic future for GPO, NTIS, andDLP must consider the increasingly decen-tralized, competitive environment that char-acterizes the electronic information market-place. The Federal Government is moving inthe direction of implementing electronic infor-mation systems at the heart of most agencyactivities. In the long-term, the myriad of pos-sible information dissemination alternatives,made possible by technological advances, couldserve as a catalyst for significant changes inthe current institutional framework. Full un-derstanding of long-term alternatives will re-quire several years of pilot tests, demonstra-tions, and experiments and related evaluationstudies. In the short-to medium-term (3 to 10years), the basis for setting directions is bet-ter established.

. . . an intelligent, informed populace has been,is, and will continue to be the fundamental ele-ment in the strength of our Nation. Contrib-uting greatly to that intellectual strength isthe so-called Government document, designedto disseminate to the American public impor-tant information relative to the activities andpurposes of its Government.

–former U.S. Senator Frank J. Lausche, March 1962

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEGPO has historically carried out most of the photocomposition, there is very little produc-

Federal Government ink-on-paper printing, tion or sales of products in electronic formats.either directly or through private contractors, GPO does sell (through SupDocs) some agencyhas marketed and sold selected government and congressional products in magnetic com-documents (in paper and microfiche) to the pub- puter tape format. It also has ongoing pilotlic (through the SupDocs), and has distributed projects involving both online and CD-ROMgovernment documents to the depository li- dissemination and both desktop and high-endbraries (through the DLP). While GPO already electronic publishing, pursuant to direction ofmakes extensive use of electronic input and the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP).

11

Defining GPO’s future role in the dissemi-nation of electronic formats presents a majoropportunity for Congress and GPO. One alter-native, mandatory centralization of all elec-tronic dissemination through SupDocs (or anyother central government office), would con-flict with numerous existing agency activities,would meet strong agency opposition, couldprecipitate legal and political challenges, andwould not appear to be cost-effective. On theother hand, excluding electronic formats fromthe SupDocs sales program would erode theviability and integrity of the program overtime, and compromise the ability of SupDocsto facilitate broad public awareness and useof Federal information. A middle ground alter-native, with SupDocs including selected elec-tronic formats and products, would appear tostrengthen the SupDocs sales program, facili-tate public access, and preserve the prerogativesof the agencies to disseminate electronicallythemselves (and of private vendors to enhanceand resell electronic formats).

SupDocs sales of magnetic computer tapes,floppy disks, compact optical disks, and per-haps electronic printing-on-demand productswould appear to be straightforward, except fora possible overlap with NTIS. Sales of onlineservices could be more difficult due to staff-ing, software development, and capital require-ments, and to more intensive competition withagencies and commercial vendors.

Another challenge is to define GPO’s rolerelative to the growth in agency desktop andhigh-end electronic publishing systems. TheGAO survey of 114 civilian agency compo-nents indicated that one-half or more are cur-

f’hofo credft U S Government Pvnt(ng Off/cc

GPO operator using electronic photocompositionequipment

rently operating or pilot testing desktop pub-lishing, computer-aided page makeup, andelectronic composition technologies, and one-third are operating or testing full electronicpublishing systems, as shown in Table 1-4.OTA estimates that, as of fiscal year 1987,agencies had already spent at least $400 mil-lion on electronic publishing-related tech-nologies.

GPO could have a key role in standards-setting, training: and innovative activities rele~

vant to electronic publishing, but GPO will beoperating in a much more decentralized, com-petitive environment than has traditionallybeen the case with conventional ink-on-paperprinting. The general demand for conventionalprinting is likely to continue for several yearsat a slow growth or steady-state level. How-ever, in the medium-term (3 to 10 years), a sig-

Table l-4.—Civilian Departmental Agency Use of Selected ElectronicPublishing-Related Technologies

Percent of agencies responding

Currently in Currently prototypingTechnology operational use or pilot testing Totals

Computer-aided page makeup ... .‘ . . . . . 50.0 8.8 58.8Computer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.8 7<9 73.7Elect ron ic photocompos i t ion . . . . . . . . . 43.9 7.9 51.8Laser and other nonimpact printing ., ... . 64.0 1.8 65.8Desktop publishing system . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 14.9 49.1Electronic publishing system . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 10.5 31.6SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice S“urvey of Federal Agencies, 1987

.—

12

nificant portion of GPO inplant and procuredprinting could be suitable for electronic dis-semination or vulnerable to competition fromelectronic formats. The plans and activities ofdefense agencies are particularly important,since the Army, Navy, and Air Force togetheraccount for roughly one-third of total GPObillings. Over the next few years, the defenseagencies are hoping to place most manuals,directives, and technical documentation onelectronic media. GPO will have to be innova-tive in matching its expertise to agency needs,which are likely to vary widely and change atan increasingly rapid pace.

With respect to GPO’s role in traditional ink-on-paper printing, the fiscal year 1987 GPOprinting workload totaled $771 million, ofwhich about threequarters was procured fromcommercial printing contractors and one-quar-ter carried out at the GPO main and regionalprinting plants. As shown in Table 1-5, about80 percent of legislative branch printing workis done inplant, while about 85 percent of ex-ecutive branch printing work is contracted out.Overall, about 45 percent of inplant work islegislative, while about 95 percent of con-tracted work is for the executive branch.

OTA examined several alternatives, includ-ing decentralizing GPO’s conventional print-ing and procurement functions, transferringGPO’s procurement program to the executivebranch, and limiting GPO to legislative branchwork. Based on information available to OTA(including comparative costs of GPO inhouse,GPO procured, agency inhouse, and agency

procured printing), none of these alternativesappears to be cost-effective. These alternativeswould largely eliminate concerns about sepa-ration of powers, since executive branch print-ing would no longer be done by or through alegislative branch agency. However, they couldcomplicate the functioning of SupDocs and theDLP, and could have significant adverse ef-fects on the GPO labor force.

OTA identified several opportunities for im-provement in GPO’s traditional printing serv-ices, These include more competitive pricing andtimely delivery of GPO main plant inhouse workfor executive agencies, itemized estimating andbilling practices, regular surveys of customerneeds and problems, and revised and strength-ened GPO advisory groups.

In principle, the GPO main plant is well posi-tioned to meet demands for conventional print-ing, with one of the best equipped printing fa-cilities in the United States and an experiencedwork force. However, GPO inhouse printingcosts are high in part due to the need to main-tain operational capacity to handle a widediversity of printing work, and to meet peakcongressional and priority executive branchworkloads. A significant part of this workloadis well suited for electronic formats (e.g., Con-fessional Record, Federal Register). A grad-ual transition from paper to electronic formatsfor these items could help reduce GPO costs,potentially increase access to this information,and place the GPO main plant on a more com-petitive footing for executive branch printing.

Table 1.5.—GPO Workload Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987(in millions of dollars)

Procured Main plant Regional plantprinting printing printing Totals

Legislative branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23 $ 90 $113Executive branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 90 :1!! 656Judicial branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $576 $18; ;1’2 $77:NA = not applicable.

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Office, 1987

. —

13

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

NTIS has historically served as the FederalGovernment’s archive and clearinghouse forscientific and technical reports prepared byFederal agencies or contractors, along with re-lated indices and bibliographies. The bulk ofNTIS documents are provided in paper or mi-crofiche format, although, in recent years,NTIS also has served as a clearinghouse forsome electronic format products (e.g., softwareand databases). Also, NTIS performs other re-lated services such as patent licensing, Japa-nese literature exchange, and FOIA requestand/or information sales processing for a fewagencies.

With respect to NTIS, the major opportu-nity is, quite simply, determining the futureof NTIS as a government entity. NTIS facesstrategic challenges on several fronts. First,the core NTIS business, as measured by salesof paper and microfiche reports, has beenshrinking (by about 40 to 50 percent) over thepast decade (see Table 1-6). In part as a result,NTIS prices for these reports have gone up con-siderably faster than the inflation rate in or-der to help maintain break-even operations.Over the last few years, NTIS has offset declin-ing revenues from full-text reports and sub-scription, bibliographic, and announcementproducts with increasing revenues from serv-ices to other agencies (such as order billing andprocessing), brokerage fees on sales of otheragency materials, and sales of computer-re-lated products.

Photo credit Natlortal Technical In forrnatfon Serv/ce

NTIS staff pulls an archive document fromthe NTIS collection

Second, a significant percentage (estimatedat one-third to one-half, see Table 1-7) of Fed-eral scientific and technical reports are neverprovided to NTIS, since agency participationis strictly voluntary. The NTIS collection isthus becoming increasingly incomplete. Third,

Table 1.7.—Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS,Fiscal Years 1983, 1987

1983 1987 Net change

Number of titles received . ....79,471 62,856 –21 “/0Estimated percentage of all

relevant titlesa. . . . . . . . . . . . 67°/0 530/0 – 140/0aA~~umes the number of relevant agency titles remains constant al 119,000 Per

year

SOURCE National Technical Information Service and Office of TechnologyAssessment, 1988.

Table 1-6.—Trends in Sales of Selected NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980, 1987

Net1980 1987 change——

in thousands of copies

Paper documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 393 –48 0/0Microfiche documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 67 –57

in millions of copies

Selected Research in Microfiche (SRI M). . . . . . . . . . . . 2.72 1.33 –51in thousands of subscriptions

Government Research Announcements and Index . . . 2.22 1.15 –48Abstract Newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......16.0 6.8 –58SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

14

NTIS is being outdistanced by most of the Fed- firmed its intent that NTIS remain in theeral science agencies with respect to use of elec- government, Congress now has the opportu-tronic information technology. And fourth, nity to determine where NTIS should be lo-NTIS has been caught in the middle of the on- cated and how it should relate to other Fed-going debate over privatization of Federal in- eral agencies, including what agency materialsformation functions. Since Congress has af- should or must be submitted to NTIS.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE/SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

Proposals have been made to retain NTISin the Department of Commerce, as a govern-ment corporation or in essentially its presentform; consolidate NTIS with SupDocs, eitherwithin GPO or as part of a newly establishedGovernment Information Office; and consoli-date NTIS with the Library of Congress.

Whatever the alternative chosen by Con-gress, strengthened NTIS-SupDocs coopera-tion would likely lead to improvements inindexing, marketing, and international ex-change of Federal information. And strength-ened cooperation seems essential to the extentboth agencies pursue sales of electronic formatproducts and that SupDocs enters the low-demand market. At present, demand for NTISdocuments averages about 10 copies per title,compared to about 2,000 copies per title foritems in the SupDocs sales program (see boxD for a comparison of NTIS and SupDocs).

NTIS and SupDocs could cooperate on im-plementing electronic technologies that wouldmeet NTIS clearinghouse and archival needs,plus support a broadening of the SupDocsproduct line to include selected low-demanditems. Wherever located, NTIS appears to be

DEPOSITORYThe DLP is administered by GPO and serves

as a mechanism for dissemination of Federalagency documents free of charge to the approx-imately 1,400 participating libraries. Thelibraries, in return, provide housing for the doc-uments and access to this information free of

ideally suited for implementation of an electronicdocument system (using optical disk storage,electronic printing, and multi-format output—paper, microfiche, and electronic), perhaps usingthe Defense Technical Information Center(DTIC) system as a prototype, that could revital-ize NTIS if coupled with improved agency par-ticipation. Overall, an electronic NTIS shouldbe able to greatly increase the diversity andtimeliness of NTIS (and related private ven-dor) offerings, increase the ability of NTIS (andprivate vendors) to match information prod-ucts with potential users, and reduce costs.

. . . the new [electronic] technology not onlygives potential users quicker and more con-venient access to wider bodies of information,including instantly current information, thancan be provided by print alone; it also givesthe user a new kind of ability to search throughand manipulate the information, and in effectto create new information by the selection,combination, and arrangement of data.–Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information,

American Z.ibrary .4ssociation, 1986.

LIBRARIES

charge to the general public. About 55 percentof the depository libraries are universitylibraries, 23 percent are public libraries, 11 per-cent are law school libraries, 7 percent are Fed-eral libraries, and 4 percent are special librariesand the like.

—.. — —

15

Box D.—National Technical Information Service and Superintendent of Documents,How They Compare

NTIS SupDocs

Branch of government Executive LegislativeLocation Department of Commerce GPOStatutory authority 15 U.s.c. 1151-1157 44 U.S.C 1701-1722Total annual revenues’ $22 million $100 million

(approximate)Titles for sale 2 million 20,000

(approximate)Total annual sales volumeh 6 million copies 27 million copiesAverage sales per title 10 copies 2,000 copiesPrimary document formats paper, microfiche paper, microfichePrimary source of documents Federal agencies and con- Federal agencies, Congress

tractorsElectronic products’ 800 numerical or statistical few dozen magnetic

databases tape products(approximate) 300 textual databases

300 computer software items(incl. models)

Prepares bibliographies/ Yes Yescatalogs

Conducts marketing activities Yes YesCarries out international Yes Yes

document exchangePerforms reimbursable services Yes—for agencies Yes—Consumer Information

Information Center, Deposi-tory Library Program(’

a 1 ~clude~ fisca] ~.ear 19R7 revenues from reimbursable services and services funded through appropriations.bFiscal “ear 198ti; SUpI)OCS data include Consumer Information Center SdeS.cFiscal ~rear 198’7.dRelmbursed through appropriations.SOURCE; Nat]onal Technical Information Ser\’ice :ind US. Go\rernment Printing Office, 1988.

As with GPO and NTIS, there is a major ernment information in all formats, and otheropportunity to define the future role of the congressional committees concur in the deci-DLP with respect to dissemination of Federalinformatione in electronic formats. As agenciesmake increasing use of electronic formats, limit-ing the DLP to paper and microfiche productswould, over time, reduce the type and amountof Federal information available to the public,and would erode the legislative intent of the DLP(e.g., as expressed in the legislative history ofthe Depository Library Act of 1962). The impe-tus for including electronic information in theDLP is strong. The JCP has interpreted theDLP statutory provisions as extending to gov-

sion to disseminate certain electronic formatsto depositories. OTA concluded that, if it isto succeed, this emerging policy needs to befurther developed and refined, and have thesupport of DLP participants (especially li-braries, GPO, and the agencies that are thesource of most DLP materials). A variety ofpilot projects, demonstrations, and tests in-volving various technologies, financial arrange-ments, and delivery mechanisms (includingpossible involvement of the private sector) iswarranted. Ultimately, Congress may wish to

16

Photo credit Documents Center, Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory Unlvers/ty

Librarian assisting user at reference desk at theRobert W. Woodruff Library

consider a reorganization or restructuring ofthe current DLP in light of both electronic in-formation dissemination options now or likelyto become available and the evolving natureof libraries and the telecommunication infras-tructure.

An important reason for electronic pilotprojects is to better understand the issue ofcosts to users, government, and depository in-stitutions. If the basic underlying principle ofthe depository program is to retain free accessto government information for users, then Con-gress needs to be aware that there maybe addi-tional costs associated with the introduction ofcertain electronic services, and assist depositorylibraries and GPO in designing and financing

ways to make this information available to thepublic.

Distribution of selected government infor-mation products in CD-ROM format such asthe bound, cumulated Congressional Recordcould improve access to such information andcould be a cost-effective dissemination mech-anism for certain datafiles. There could be someadditional equipment and training costs asso-ciated with this format for the depository li-brary participants. Delivery of online datafiles(such as the Federal Register) to the publicthrough depository institutions requires pilot-testing to determine how best to provide ac-cess to this information, and how to ensure thatthe additional costs associated with online for-mats do not hinder public access or place un-realistic, unmanageable financial or adminis-trative burdens on participating libraries.

The results of the GAO survey of Federalinformation users indicate a substantial depos-itory library demand for electronic formats.The vast majority of libraries responding in-dicated that the Record and Register, alongwith an index to Federal information and data-base of key Federal statistical series, wouldbe moderately to greatly useful in both onlineand CD-ROM formats, as shown in Table 1-8.The GAO survey also found that many of thedepository libraries have access to key infor-mation technologies, as shown in Table 1-9.

Table 1-8.—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information in Electronic Formats

Percent of libraries respondingmoderately to greatly usefula

Online Offlineimmediate CD-ROM

Item access issued monthlyCongressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 74Congressional Committee Calendar/Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 60Federal Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 80Federal Agency Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 62Comprehensive Index to Federal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 90Integrated Database of Key Federal Statistical Series. . . . . . . . . 90 88aBaS8d on responses from 318 depository libraries out Of a sample Of 451

SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

17

Table l-9.—Depository Library Access to Information Technology

Number of librariesInformation technology with accessa

Microcomputer without modem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283Microcomputer with modem for online access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337Microfiche reader without printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352Microfiche reader with printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169Videodisk player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Mainframe computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149aBased on responses from 403 depository libraries out of a sample of 451 depository libraries

SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

OTA identified several important technicalmanagement alternatives that could be imple-mented under a wide range of institutionalscenarios and could be implemented by agencyaction using existing statutory authorities andwith congressional concurrence. These alter-natives include:

Technical standards on text markup,page/document description, optical disks,and other areas important to informationdissemination (see box E). The NationalBureau of Standards (NBS), DTIC (oranother responsible Department ofDefense component), and GPO could beassigned lead responsibility, presumablybuilding on accepted or emerging privatesector industry standards to the extentpossible and working through the exist-ing national and international standardsorganizations.

● Governmentwide information index to ma-jor Federal information products, regard-less of format. GPO and/or NTIS couldbe assigned lead responsibility to consoli-date and upgrade existing indices, direc-tories, and inventories into one integratedindex. The government could contractwith private firms or library and informa-tion science professionals to carry outsome of this work. The index could bemade available in multiple formats anddisseminated both directly from the gov-ernment as well as via the depository

●

●

●

libraries and private vendors (perhaps inenhanced form).Innovation centers to exchange learningand experience about technological inno-vations and user needs relevant to infor-mation dissemination. Such centers couldbe designated or established at, for exam-ple, DTIC (for the defense sector), NBSand NTIS (for the civilian executive branch),and GPO (for the legislative branch).DTIC, NBS, and GPO, along with severalmission agencies, already have a varietyof laboratory and/or demonstration activ-ities under way. Agencies could be re-quired to conduct “Agency X-2000”studies to creatively explore and developtheir own visions of future information dis-semination activities.Revised Information Resources Manage-ment (IRM) program. A variety of train-ing, career development, budget report-ing, and management actions could betaken to give information dissemination(including printing, publishing, public af-fairs, press, library, and related activitiesand personnel) a stronger and better un-derstood role within the IRM concept.Electronic press release service. Press re-leases and other time-sensitive informa-tion (such as crop reports, weather bulle-tins, and economic and trade data) frommajor Federal agencies could be electron-ically provided directly to the press, via

18

Box E.—The Importance of Text Markup and Page Description Standards forInformation Dissemination

Text markup standards are particularly important to realize the full benefits of electronicinformation dissemination. If government documents (whether reports, pamphlets, manuals,other text, or text plus tabular and graphics material) are not prepared in a standardized elec-tronic format using standardized codes and descriptors, substantial and costly recoding andrekeyboarding may be necessary at later stages of the dissemination process. Text markupstandards are intended to establish a consistent set of codes for labeling key elements of adocument–such as chapter titles, paragraph indentations, tabular presentations, and the like.If these electronic codes are widely agreed upon arid used (i.e., standardized), then the docu-ments can be electronically transferred from one stage in the dissemination process to anotherwith little or no additional effort and cost, if the equipment is designed to be compatible withthe electronic codes, Three major approaches to text markup standards are:

. GPO logically structured full text database standard;● Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), an international standard that has

been adopted by DoD and NBS; and● Office Document Architecture (ODA), an international standard under consideration

by NBS.

Page description standards are also very important. If the language or code used by thepage composition equipment is not compatible with the code used by the output devices (e.g.,printers), then additional work is required to convert the codes. Sometimes it is easier justto rekeyboard and recode the entire document, at significant additional cost. Page descriptionlanguages are intended to establish a consistent set of codes compatible with both compositionand output equipment. One possible page description standard is PostScript, a defacto indus-try standard under consideration by NBS and the national and international standards organi-zations. Another possibility is the Standard Page Description Language (SPDL) now beingdeveloped.

SOURCE: National Bureau of Standards, Defense Technical Information Center, and U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

private electronic news and wire services,and to the DLP. A major issue concernsequity of press access and the need to en-sure that cost or technical requirementsdo not discourage smaller, less affluent,and/or out-of-town news organizationsfrom realizing the potential benefits. Whileelectronic press releases can be more timelyand cost-effective than messenger or maildelivery of paper releases, dual format (pa-per and electronic) would appear to benecessary-at least for a lengthy transi-tion period–for those news outlets with-out, or lacking interest in, online electroniccapability.

Photo cred(t USA TODAY, Gannett, Co /nc all rights reserved

Reporter sitting at video display terminal

19

STATUTORY/OVERSIGHT CHANGES

Congress could amend the Printing Act, De-pository Library Act, and Paperwork Reduc-tion Act to provide statutory direction for spe-cific institutional and technical/managementalternatives, as well as to provide general phi-losophical guidance on electronic informationdissemination.

At the most basic level, a fundamental cross-cutting issue is public access to Federal infor-mation. Debate over the use of electronic for-mats, privatization, and the like is obscuringthe commitment of Congress, as expressed innumerous public laws, to the importance ofFederal information and its dissemination incarrying out agency missions, and the princi-ples of democracy and open government. A re-newed congressional commitment to public ac-cess in an electronic age may be needed.

Congress may wish to legislate a govern-mentwide electronic information disseminationpolicy. In so doing, Congress would need toconsider several sometimes competing con-siderations, including: enhancing public access;minimizing unnecessary overlap and duplica-tion in Federal information activities; optimiz-ing the use of electronic versus paper formats;and optimizing the role of the private sector.OMB has promulgated its own view, albeit con-troversial, of appropriate public policy (in theform of OMB Circular A-130). The vast ma-

jority of agencies do not have policies on elec-tronic dissemination (see Table 1-10). As agen-cies begin to develop such policies, the OMBview is likely to have a dominant role, in theabsence of clear and positive congressionalguidance. Congress may wish to amend specificstatutes or otherwise promulgate its own viewson the basic principles addressed and policiesenunciated in OMB Circular A-130 as it relatesto Federal information dissemination. In par-ticular, Congress could provide more specificguidance on the role of the private sector andcontracting out of Federal information dissem-ination, user charges, and provision of value--added information products. Congress couldalso make any necessary adjustments in over-sight mechanisms (such as establishing a JointCongressional Committee on Government In-formation).

With respect to the Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA), this statute too was enacted inan era when paper records were the dominantform of government information. The applica-tion of FOIA to electronic formats has createda number of problems. The courts have ex-pressed a need for Congress to clarify grayareas left open by the statute. For example:

c The case law as applied to paper infor-mation establishes that FOIA does not re-quire agencies to create new records in

Table I-l O.—Federal Agency Policies on Electronic Information Dissemination

Percent of agencies havingdocumented policies

Policies and procedures for Dept.a I nd;b

Public access to agency electronic databases?yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10.4no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 89.6Electronic dissemination by agency contractors?yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 6.3no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.0 41.7do not use contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 52.1App/icabi/ity of FO/A to electronic formats?yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 25.0no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 75.0ap~rC~nt of 114 depafirnental clvlllan agency Cofnponents respondingbPerCent of 4J3 independent civilian agency Components responding.SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

20

●

fulfilling requests. When additional pro-gramming is required to extract informa-tion from computer systems, agencies andcourts have sometimes held that such pro-gramming would be analogous to recordcreation, and therefore would not be a re-quired part of the FOIA “search” proc-ess. In the electronic age, however, somedegree of reprogramming or programmodification may be essential to obtainaccess to electronic information.Another gray area involves defining a‘‘reasonable effort on the part of the gov-ernment in searching for records respon-sive to a FOIA request. In the computercontext, the programming/no program-ming distinction has begun to separate de-cisions about ‘reasonableness from con-siderations of effort. This is incongruouswith tradition, as significant expendituresof effort continue to be involved in man-ual FOIA searches. Retrieval of paper doc-uments may involve extensive tracking,communication with various bureaus, con-solidation of disparate files, and substan-tial hand deletions of exempted materials.As computer capabilities for searching,segregating, and consolidating of data be-come increasingly efficient and cost-effec-tive, computer searches could be broadenedand public access enhanced. Agencies mayneed to focus on designing new ways torespond more readily to FOIA requestsfor computer records.

● Another issue is whether and under whatconditions the advantages of electronicformats are such that access to the formatas well as the information itself should beguaranteed. Although the case law and theFOIA fee guidelines have established thatcomputer-stored information is subject toFOIA, requesters are not guaranteed ac-cess to the information in formats otherthan paper. If large quantities of datacould be more effectively utilized with theflexibility offered by magnetic tapes,disks, or online retrieval, access to theseelectronic media may be important.

Congress could amend FOIA to bring elec-tronic formats clearly within the statutory pur-view, define the scope and limits of FOIAsearches in an electronic environment, and clar-ify fees and procedures for FOIA requests forelectronic information. For the 1990s and be-yond, Congress may need to decide whetherthe FOIA should continue to be viewed as an“access to records” statute, or whether itshould be perceived more broadly as an “ac-cess to information” statute. Due to the ex-plosive growth in electronic information storage,processing, and transmission by the FederalGovernment, traditional views about recordsand searches may need to be modified to en-sure even basic access to computerized publicinformation.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Congress itself is a major source of Federal ever, increasingly, electronic formats offer sig-information. Congressional information rangesfrom the Congressional Record to congres-sional calendars and schedules to the statusof pending legislation to a wide range of com-mittee reports, and to numerous documentsproduced by the analytical support agencies(Congressional Research Service [CRS], Gen-eral Accounting Office [GAO], and Congres-sional Budget Office ICBO], as well as OTA).Most of this information has been and con-tinues to be available in paper formats. How-

nificant advantages in terms of timeliness andsearchability, and are being utilized by privatevendors and congressional in-house supportoffices (e.g., the House Information SystemsOffice and CRS) for a growing range of con-gressional information.

To a large degree, OTA’S general findingsabout technological trends and opportunitiesalso apply to congressional information. Elec-tronic options offer the potential to make con-

21

gressional information more quickly and widelyavailable. This can be very important for citi-zens and organizations-whether consumer, li-brary, research, labor, or business in nature—that desire to closely follow congressionalactivity and/or participate in the legislativeprocess. As congressional offices automate, in-creasing amounts of information are created,revised, and stored in electronic form. This cre-ates the potential to apply “information lifecycle’ and ‘multi-format output concepts tothe legislative branch as well as to the execu-tive branch. Again, common technical stand-ards will be important in realizing this po-tential.

Congress has the opportunity to establish astrategic direction for electronic disseminationof legislative branch information. The impor-tance of congressional information to an in-formed citizenry and the need to ensure equitablechannels of access for all interested citizens, in-cluding access to electronic formats, are widelyaccepted in principle. The differences of opinionfocus on the means of implementation.

In setting an overall direction, Congress willneed to determine its own level of responsibil-ity for ensuring that electronic congressionalinformation is readily available to the public,

and how that information should be madeavailable (by GPO, other congressional offices,and private vendors). For example, because ofGPO’s growing role in providing electronic for-mats to Congress as part of the electronic pub-lishing process, GPO is positioned to more ac-tively participate in disseminating electroniccongressional information to the GPO deposi-tory libraries and the public-at-large. At thesame time, some commercial vendors wouldlike to contract directly with Congress, per-haps on a bulk rate discount basis, for elec-tronic dissemination of congressional informa-tion to libraries, the public, and Congress itself.

Finally, given the large number of House,Senate, and congressional support offices andunits involved with the creation and dissemi-nation of congressional information, Congressmay wish to establish a formal coordinatingmechanism to maximize the exchange of learn-ing and minimize the potential overlap, andto take advantage of the opportunities for tech-nologically enhanced access. In many respects,congressional decisions on electronic dissemi-nation of congressional information are justas important as prior decisions on radio andtelevision coverage of congressional hearingsand floor sessions.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The report is organized into 12 chapters.Chapter 1 is the summary. Chapters 2 and 3together provide an overview of key technicaland institutional trends and issues. Chapter2 presents a picture of current evolving Fed-eral Government information disseminationtechnologies and activities. The results of theGAO survey of Federal agencies are used ex-tensively. Chapter 3 discusses current techni-cal trends that are relevant to Federal infor-mation dissemination and that are expectedto continue or intensify for 3 to 5 years intothe future and in many cases longer.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide substantialanalysis and discussion on the major govern-mentwide information dissemination institu-tions–GPO (including SupDocs), NTIS, and

DLP. Chapter 4 examines three alternative fu-tures for GPO printing functions—continua-tion of a traditional ink-on-paper printing roleonly, for both the legislative and executivebranches; a GPO for the legislative branchonly; and the so-called decentralized electronicGPO that would involve expanded electronicpublishing activities and the inclusion of someelectronic formats in the SupDocs sales pro-gram. The results of the GAO surveys of Fed-eral information users are used extensively inchapter 4. These three alternatives highlighta range of considerations important to plan-ning GPO’s future.

Chapter 5 examines the opportunities andchallenges facing NTIS. Some of the GAO usersurvey results are included, and survey results

22

previously cited in chapters 2 and 4 are alsorelevant. Improved cooperation between NTISand SupDocs is also examined. Much of thediscussion is relevant to NTIS and SupDocsregardless of the institutional structure as longas NTIS remains in the government in someform.

Chapters 6 and 7 provide indepth analysisand discussion of the history and current sta-tus of GPO’s Depository Library Programwith respect to electronic dissemination. Chap-ter 6 covers a range of electronic informationtechnologies currently used or whose use is con-templated by libraries, and introduces theDLP, current technology and several dissem-ination issues. Chapter 7 examines and evalu-ates in considerable depth a range of alterna-tive futures for DLP with specific illustrations.Two case studies are presented on the Con-gressional Record and the Federal Register.Finally, chapter 7 provides an analysis of pend-ing DLP policy and institutional issues regard-ing electronic dissemination.

The next three chapters—8 through 10—examine other important dimensions of Fed-eral information dissemination. Chapter 8 dis-cusses congressional information dissemina-tion with particular attention to two casestudies (on the Congressional Record and billstatus information) and to the disseminationpractices of three congressional support agen-cies (OTA, GAO, and CRS).

Chapter 9 presents an indepth analysis ofFOIA with respect to electronic formats. Thischapter reviews statutory and judicial prece-dents on the applicability of FOIA to electronicmedia, and examines possible directions foramending FOIA in light of the implicationsof technological change for basic FOIA con-cepts. Chapter 10 focuses on the electronicpress release and its implications for govern-ment-press relationships. The chapter reviewsthe status of automation in Federal agencypress offices and in the press newsroom, ex-amines the strengths and weaknesses of elec-tronic press releases, and discusses the tech-nological and strategic choices.

Chapter 11 considers a wide range of policyand institutional issues that are relevant toFederal information dissemination. Chapter 11also highlights the debate over the applicabil-ity and interpretation of key policy instru-ments to electronic dissemination. Chapter 12discusses possible future directions for andbroader implications of SupDocs and NTIS in-volvement in Federal electronic informationdissemination.

Several crosscutting themes are relevant tomany chapters. Three of the most importantthemes are:

1. public access to Federal information,2. user needs for Federal information, and3. the private sector role in Federal informa-

tion dissemination.

While there are not separate chapters devotedto these topics, they are discussed through-out the report. Also, while there is a separatechapter on technology trends, technology isdiscussed to varying degrees in every chapterof the report. Similarly, while there are sepa-rate chapters on GPO, NTIS, and DLP, thereis at least something significant in every chap-ter of the report that is relevant to planningthe future of these institutions.

For discussion of related topics not coveredin this report, see the other OTA reports listedbelow. These reports cover such topics as: thetension between public access to governmentinformation and: protection of national secu-rity interests; physical security and data in-tegrity; privacy rights of individuals and orga-nizations; and intellectual property rights.Other reports cover the need to preserve gov-ernment information for archival and histori-cal purposes, and the need to consider govern-ment information in the context of long-termsocial, political, and economic changes relevantto the information and communication infra-structure of the United States.

● Medlars and Health Information Policy—A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-H-11, September 1982. NTIS order #PB83-168658.

Federal Government Information Tech-nology: Electronic Surveillance and CivilLiberties, OTA-CIT-293, October 1985.GPO stock #052-003-01015-l; $3.00. NTISorder #PB 86-123 239/AS.Federal Government information Tech-nology: Management, Security, and Con-gressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297, Feb-ruary 1986. GPO stock #052 -O03-O1026-7;$7.50. NTIS order #PB 86-205 499/AS.The Regulatory Environment of Science,OTA-TM-SET-34, February 1986. GPOstock #052 -O03-O1024-l; $6.00. NTIS or-der #PB 86-182 003/AS.Intellectual Property Rights in an Age ofElectronics and Information, OTA-CIT-302, April 1982. GPO stock #052-003-01036-4; $15.00 NTIS order #PB 87-100301/AS.Federal Government Information Tech-nology: Electronic Record Systems and1ndividual Privacy, OTA-CIT-296, June1986. GPO stock #052 -O03-O1038-l; $7.50NTIS order #PB 87-100 335/AS.

23

Commercial Newsgathering From Space,OTA-TM-ISC-40, May 1987. GPO stock#052 -O03-O1066-6; $3.00.The Electronic Supervisor: New Technol-ogy, New Tensions, OTA-CIT-333, Sep-tember 1987. GPO stock ~052-003-01082-8;$6.50.Defending Secretsf Sharing Data: NewLocks and Keys for Electronic Informa-tion, OTA-CIT-31O, October 1987. GPOstock #052 -O03-O1083-6; $8.50.Science, Technology, and the First Amend-ment, OTA-CIT-369, January 1988. GPOstock #052 -O03-O1090-9; $3.50.Book Preservation Technologies, OTA-O-376, May 1988. GPO stock #052-003-01103-4; $5.00.Communication Systems for an Informa-tion Age, OTA-CIT, forthcoming, spring1989.Scientific and Technical information Dis-semination: Opportunities and Problems,forthcoming, spring 1989.

Chapter 2

Overview ofFederal Information

Dissemination

Photo cradit: Chase Studios

National Institute of Health medical staff using the National Library of Medicine’sMedline database

CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Size and Scope of Federal Information Dissemination Enterprise . . . . . . . . 28Technological Initiatives by Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Institutional Infrastructure for Federal Information Dissemination . . . . . . 36

TablesTable Page2-l. Federal Expenditures on Information Dissemination, Civilian and

Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292-2. Illustrative Agency Expenditures for Information Dissemination,

Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302-3. Selected Federal Agency Information Dissemination Activities,

Fiscal Years 1983 and 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302-4. Types of Public Information Dissemination by Federal Agencies.. . . 312-5. Agency Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information and

Statistical Data, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322-6. Agency Use of Nonpaper Formats for Information Dissemination

by Type of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322-7. Agency Use of Information Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342-8. Agency Prototyping or Testing of Advanced Technologies . . . . . . . . . 352-9. Federal Agency Use of Institutional Mechanisms for Information

Dissemination, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382-10. Approximate Distribution Volume, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392-11. GPO/SupDocs and NTIS Sales Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987. . . . . . 392-12. Estimated Use of Depository Libraries, Fiscal Year 1985 . . . . . . . . . . 392-13. Federal Civilian Departmental Agency Evaluation of

Information Dissemination Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402-14. Federal Civilian Departmental Evaluations of GPO Services . . . . . . . 402-15. Federal Publishers Committee Survey of GPO Services,

Selected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 2

Overview of Federal InformationDissemination

SUMMARY

Information dissemination is a significantfunction of the Federal Government, account-ing for an estimated $6 billion per year in an-nual expenditures for relevant executiveagency activities (including information clear-inghouse operations, printing and publishing,library operations, and related research, devel-opment, and testing). This estimate does notinclude expenditures for the collection and de-velopment of the information disseminated, oreven a prorated portion of expenditures forbasic agency automation and information tech-nology procurement.

The primary Federal mechanisms for infor-mation dissemination are the Federal agenciesthemselves; the U.S. Government Printing Of-fice (GPO), which includes about 5 percent ofagency publications in the GPO Superinten-dent of Documents Sales Program and roughlyone-half of agency publications in the Deposi-tory Library Program (DLP); the NationalTechnical Information Service (NTIS), whichsells scientific and technical documents pro-vided by the agencies; the Consumer Informa-tion Center (CIC), which distributes free or low-cost consumer pamphlets for the agencies; andvarious private sector vendors operating un-der government contract. Federal informationis also disseminated by numerous intermedi-ary mechanisms, such as the press, libraries,and commercial vendors who, on their own ini-tiative, enhance and/or resell government in-formation.

The number of civilian agency publicationsin paper format appears to be declining slowly,while the number of publications in electronicformat has more than tripled over the past 4years. Civilian agencies reported, as of fiscalyear 1987, over 7,500 information products dis-

seminated electronically. Paper is still by farthe dominant format (accounting for 80 to 90percent of total information products), but sig-nificant agency use of some electronic formatsis already occurring for some purposes. For ex-ample, statistical data are highly suited to elec-tronic formats, and, based on results of theGeneral Accounting Office (GAO) survey,about one-third of the civilian agencies usemagnetic tape or disks, one-fifth floppy disksand electronic data transfer, and one-tenth elec-tronic mail for dissemination of statisticaldata. By comparison, about two-thirds of theagencies use paper and roughly one-tenth usemicrofiche for disseminating statistical data.

Many Federal agencies have taken initia-tives with respect to the use of electronicinformation technologies for information dis-semination. Electronic technologies have pen-etrated the majority of agencies in every aspectof the information process. The GAO surveyresults suggest roughly one-half to two-thirdsof the civilian agencies make at least some useof floppy disks, magnetic tapes or disks, elec-tronic data transfer, and electronic mail forinformation collection/filing and dissemina-tion. About one-third of the agencies have desk-top publishing systems, roughly one-half haveelectronic photocomposition capability, androughly one-quarter have electronic publish-ing systems.

A key characteristic of the current Federal in-formation infrastructure is that while Federalagencies and private companies disseminate Fed-eral information in paper and, increasingly, elec-tronic formats, the central governmentwide dis-semination mechanisms (GPO/SupDocs, NTIS,DLP, CIC) are presently limited largely to pa-per (or paper and microfiche).

27

28

Evaluating agency satisfaction with the vari-ous dissemination channels is difficult. Avail-able survey data for dissemination of paperformats are subjective in nature. Not surpris-ingly, the civilian agencies rated their own dis-semination services as generally of high qual-ity, timely, and moderate to low in cost.Agencies rated GPO slightly lower in timeli-ness and slightly higher in cost, and NTISsomewhat lower in quality and timeliness and

higher in cost. Commercial vendors were ratedabout the same as the agency. With respectto GPO, there appears to be overall agencysatisfaction with respect to traditional ink-on-paper composition, printing, and binding,However, there is continuing dissatisfactionamong some agencies with respect to GPOcost, timeliness, estimating and billing proce-dures, and marketing/distribution of printedproducts.

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Government today stands at amajor crossroads with respect to numerous pol-icy, oversight, and operational aspects of Fed-eral information dissemination. Advances ininformation technology over the past decade,and especially in the past few years, haveopened up many new opportunities for infor-mation dissemination-for all segments ofAmerican society. Each year the private com-mercial sector generates literally thousands ofnew information technology-based productsand services (including hardware, software,and application packages), many of which arecurrently or potentially applicable to Federalinformation dissemination.

Over the past several years, technologicalapplications such as optical disks, electronicmail and bulletin boards, electronic and desk-top publishing, electronic printing on demand,and the like have become technologically fea-sible and economically viable for widespreadapplication in the Federal Government as wellas the private sector. The vast majority of Fed-eral agencies are experimenting with some ofthese technologies, and some agencies are al-ready implementing major operational appli-cations.

Capturing the full benefits of these technol-ogies involves consideration of a wide rangeof Federal policy, oversight, and operationalquestions as they relate to information dissem-ination. In order to assess this broad topic, theOffice of Technology Assessment (OTA) com-missioned a series of staff and contractor re-search papers, sought related studies andinformation from various executive and legis-lative branch agencies, and drew on the resultsof an extensive GAO survey of Federal agencypractices and plans.

This chapter provides a technological andinstitutional overview of Federal informationdissemination. The chapter addresses the fol-lowing specific areas:

● the size and scope of the current Federalinformation dissemination enterprise;

● the technological initiatives already un-derway in Federal agencies; and

● the institutional bases for Federal infor-mation dissemination.

Each of these is discussed below. This over-all picture of the Federal information dissemi-nation enterprise provides an important partof the context for the rest of this report.

SIZE AND SCOPE OF FEDERAL INFORMATIONDISSEMINATION ENTERPRISE

For purposes of this study, OTA defined missions and considered “public” (legally avail-“Federal information” as information collected able to the public and not subject to exemp-and/or developed by the Federal Government tions under the Freedom of Information Act,to carry out government functions and agency such as law enforcement, investigative, pro-

29

prietary, and classified information). Such pub-lic information runs the gamut from statisti-cal data and computer models, to reports,periodicals, and directories, to rules, regula-tions, and circulars, to maps, charts, and pho-tographs. Also, OTA included most formatsof Federal information in the scope of study—including paper, microforms, and electronic.

Estimating the magnitude of Federal infor-mation dissemination activities is difficult atbest. There are no credible prior estimates andonly very rough estimates can be made, sincethere is no systematic reporting of budget andactivity data for Federal information dissem-ination.

Based on the GAO survey results, with 173agency components responding, the minimumdollar amounts spent by the Federal Govern-ment (civilian and military) in fiscal year 1983and fiscal year 1987 for relevant activities areshown in Table 2-1.

The total of about $3.2 billion in reportedfiscal year 1987 expenditures is undoubtedlyconservative. Inspection of individual agencyresponses indicates that many agencies did notprovide complete responses because they didnot have and/or could not estimate relevantexpenditures. Based on examination of se-lected agency responses that appear to be espe-cially well done, it appears that about one per-cent of agency budgets on the average aredevoted to information dissemination, whichwould translate into about $6 billion (1 percentof the roughly $600 billion Federal budget, ex-cluding interest on the national debt and trans-

Table 2-1 .—Federal Expenditures on InformationDissemination, Civilian and Military

(in billions of dollars)

Fiscal year Fiscal year1983 1987—

Agency information clearinghouseoperations . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.500 $1.70

Agency printing and publishing . . . 0.900 1,10Agency l ib rary opera t ions . . 0.200 0.30Agency research, development and

testing on informationdissemination ., ... . . . . . . 0.005 0.05

$2.605 $3.15SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

fer payments), or about twice the total figurereported to GAO. Agencies vary widely in thebudget percentage reported to be allocated toinformation dissemination, and many well ex-ceed the one percent level, as illustrated in Ta-ble 2-2.

Also, these estimates do not include the costsof dissemination of technical information forweapon systems and other applications in De-partment of Defense (DoD), which are largelysensitive or classified in nature. Nor do theseestimates include expenditures for the collec-tion and development of the information dis-seminated, or even a prorated portion of ex-penditures for basic agency automation andinformation technology procurement. And theseestimates do not include the cost of federallyfunded research, development, or other activ-ities on which a significant portion of the in-formation collection, development, and/or dis-semination was based.

The GAO results provide a rough profile ofthe number of information dissemination activ-ities. The data are presented in Table 2-3 forfiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1987, with abreakdown for DoD, civilian departments, andcivilian independent agencies. Again, due toincomplete reporting from various agencies,these numbers must be considered as minimumestimates of activity levels. For example, GPOreports that about 58,000 titles were distrib-uted to depository libraries in fiscal year 1987,or about 40 percent more than reported by theagencies to GAO. However, assuming a ran-dom distribution of errors, the general trendsportrayed should be reasonably accurate.

The data suggest the following conclusionsabout the Federal information disseminationenterprise:

DoD accounts for the largest share of to-tal Federal Government publications, withabout 82 percent of the titles and 96 per-cent of the pages (originals, not copies) asof fiscid year 1987.However, an insignificant percentage (lessthan 1 percent) of DoD publications aresold by GPO or included in the DLP. Thismay be explained in part because manyof these documents are considered to be

30

Table 2-2.—illustrative Agency Expenditures for Information Dissemination, Fiscal Year 1987

Information dissemination budget (in millions of dollars)

Total Research, Printing Informationagency development and Library clearing- Totals

Agency budget and testing publishing operations house d o l l a r s a p e r c e n tb

Library of Congress . . . . . . . . . . 239.3

86,584.4

0,6

4.6

4.1 — —

207.8 40.5 0.2

4.7

253.1

2.0

0.3

2.8

21.7

1.2

5.3

2.5

3.1

7.8

3.4

2.8

7.1

US Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic ResearchServices (USDA). . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0 1.1 0.1 0.05

18.3 4.7 —

0.8 1.7 —

1.25

Patent and TrademarkOffice (DOC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natn’1 Bureau ofStandards (DOC) . . . . . . . . . . .

255.8

224.8

32.5

0.2

55.5

2.7

58.6Natn’1 Oceanic and

Atmospheric Admin. (DOC) . . 1,113.1 56.8 1.8 —

Bureau of the Census(DOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.1 7.9 1.0 — 8.9

US Geological Survey(DOI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632.4 0.5 14.6 3.2 1.2

0.4 0.2 0.4

19.5Federal Elections

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 1.0

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.5 2.4 0.5 0.6 3.5

1.8Federal TradeCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 0.6 1.2 —

Securities ExchangeCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.5 6.4 1.1 0.6 — 8.1

‘Total agency expenditure for information dissemination activitiesbAgency Information dissemination expenditures as a percentage of the total agency budget

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

Table 2.3.—Selected Federal Agency Information Dissemination Activities, Fiscal Years 1983 and 1987

Fiscal year 1983 Fiscal year 1987

DODa DEPb INDC DOD DEP INDPublications printedNumber of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339Kd 60K 29K 334K 54K 20KNumber of pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Me 4.2M 0.63M 93M 3.7M 0.55MPrinted publications accepted into GPO’s saies programNumber of titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 3.6K 1.2K 295 2.8K 0.9KNumber of pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80K 435K 182K 72K 277K 105KPrinted publications inciuded in Federai DepositoryLibrary ProgramNumber of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 38K 2.7K 776 36.5K 3.6KNumber of pages ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 K 7.1 M 0.27M 110K 7.7M 0.26Minformation products disseminated eiectronicaiiyNumber of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 1,461 1,001 307 6,261 1,521aDoD = Depaflment of Defense Agency componentsbDEP = Civilian departmental agency componentsclND = civilian independent agency COrnPOnefItS‘K = thousands‘M = milllonsSOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agenctes, 1987

—— ——.

31—

sensitive and/or to have very narrow andlimited demand.

● Of the civilian departmental and inde-pendent agency publications (totalling atleast 74,000), about 5 percent are sold byGPO and about half (54 percent) are in-cluded in the DLP as of fiscal year 1987.

While the number of DoD publications (ti-tles and pages) has remained roughly con-stant over the past 4 years (fiscal years1983-1987), the number of civilian agencypublication titles has declined by about17 percent and the number of pages byabout 12 percent. This appears to beparalleled by even a larger decline in thenumber of titles accepted into the GPOsales program (down about 23 percent).GPO reports that the total number of ti-tles in the sales program increased from17,513 in fiscal year 1983 to 26,123 in fis-cal year 1987 (up 49 percent). But this in-cludes periodicals, forms, carryover doc-uments, and the like in addition to currentyear publications, and is not necessarilyinconsistent.

The number of titles in the DLP appearsto have remained roughly constant overthe past 4 years, with the number of pagesshowing a modest increase (about 8 per-cent). The Depository Program includes,as of fiscal year 1987, about one order ofmagnitude (10 times) greater number oftitles than are available from the GPOsales program.

s The number of information products dis-seminated electronically appears to haveincreased dramatically over the past 4years, by about 200 percent for DoD, 300percent for the civilian departments, and50 percent for the civilian independentagencies. The estimated total number ofcivilian agency electronic informationproducts for fiscal year 1987 was 7,782,up from 2,462 in fiscal year 1983.

The scope of Federal information dissemi-nation cuts across all types of public informat-ion. As reported to GAO by 114 civilian

departmental components and 48 civilian in-dependent agencies, the profile is shown in Ta-ble 2-4.

The formats currently used for Federal in-formation dissemination cover the entire spec-trum. Paper is still by far the dominant for-mat. However, significant use of someelectronic formats has already occurred. Forthe 114 civilian departmental agency compo-nents and 48 civilian independent agenciesreporting to GAO, nonpaper formats are usedmost extensively for dissemination of scien-tific and technical information and for statis-tical information, as indicated in Table 2-5.

The use of nonpaper formats is also occur-ring, although on a more selective and limitedbasis, for certain other types of information.The uses of nonpaper formats reported by morethan 5 percent of the civilian departmentalagencies responding are shown in Table 2-6,by type of information.

In sum, Federal information dissemination hasalready begun the transition to significant use

Table 2.4.—Types of Public Information Disseminationby Federal Agencies

Percent of agencies responding

Departmental IndependentTypes of public information agencies agenciesPamphlets/bulletins . . . . . . . . 82 94Press releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 94Statistical data . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 75Directories/catalogs/

bibliographies . . . . . . . . . . . 69 83Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 67Scientific and technical

information . . . . . . . 63 65Contractual specs/

documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 83Administrative reports ., ., 62 88Rules, regulations,

directives, circulars . . . . . 62 85Maps, charts, photos . . . . . 54 50Decisions/opinions. ., . . . 46 71Professional journals/

proceedings. . . . . . . . . . ., 45 54Laws/statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 44Software products . . . . . . . 30 25Satellite imaaetvldata . . . . . . 6 6SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

Table 2-5.-Agency Dissemination of Scientific andTechnical Information and Statistical Data, by Format

Table 2-6.—Agency Use of Nonpaper Formats forInformation Dissemination by Type of Information

Percent of agenciesType of information responding

Dissemination of scientific and technical information

Percent of agenciesresponding Administrative reports

Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1412

865

Departmental IndependentFormat agencies aaencies

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . .Magnetic tape/ disk . . . . . . . .Videotape ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . .Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6119151413988662

65211013

810

6482

Pamphlets/bulletinsMicrofiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

Press releasesElectronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer ., ... , , ... ,Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

13765—

Directories/catalogs/bib/iographicsMicrofiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dissemination of statistical data 11995

Percent of agenciesrespond i ng

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Magnetic/tape/disk . . . . . . . . . 32Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Electronic data transfer . . . . . 18Microfiche ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Electronic mail. ... , . . . . . . . . 8Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Electronic bulletin board ., , . 4Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987.

7529171013

813

4

ManualsFloppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Contractual specs/documentsFloppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Rules, regulations, directives,

circularsElectronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

——

Maps, charts, photosFilm ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Software productsMagnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer ., . . . . . . . . .

1817

6of electronic formats. While paper is still domi-nant, it appears that electronic formats are al-ready used more frequently than microfilm ormicrofiche for many types of information. Whilemicroform still has important archival benefits,the sectors in which microfiche is used relativelyheavily (e.g., scientific and technical information,

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

statistical data, directories, bibliographies) arealso those in which new technologies, such ascompact optical disks, offer the greatest po-tential.

TECHNOLOGICAL INITIATIVES BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

Many Federal agencies have taken initia-tives with respect to the use of electronic in-formation technologies for Federal informationdissemination and related activities. The num-ber and scope of these initiatives have growndramatically over the past 4 years. One indi-cator is the amount of agency spending for re-search, development, and testing on informa-

tion dissemination. Collectively, agenciesreported to GAO that this expenditure in-creased from $5 million to $50 million betweenfiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1987. This dol-lar amount is undoubtedly low, since manyagencies did not report or reported incom-pletely on this item. If DoD is included, thedollar amounts are low by at least an order of

33

magnitude, based on separate DoD estimates.For example, the DoD Computer-Aided Acqui-sition and Logistics Program (CALS) alone isspending on the orderof$150 million per year.The primary focus of CALS is on weapon sys-tem technical data (including technical docu-ments such as engineering drawings and speci-fications developed in support of weaponsystems acquisition), much of which is sensi-tive or classified. However, the magnitude ofincrease is probably accurate—a roughly 1,000percent cumulative increase over the past 4years. There is, at present, no reporting sys-tem in DoD or the civilian agencies that sys-tematically collects relevant expenditure oractivity data.

The GAO survey results provide a remark-able picture of agency operational use of elec-tronic information technologies for informa-tion dissemination. OTA has relied primarilyon the GAO survey results for the civilian de-partmental agencies as being the most repre-sentative. As discussed in chapter 1, the de-fense agencies did not circulate the GAOsurvey instrument to many major subcabinetagency components, contrary to GAO instruc-tions; therefore, the defense agency responsesare likely to be biased by the aggregate re-sponses of the major military departments. Onthe other hand, the independent agencyresponses are dominated by a large numberof small agencies, with a similar result—thelikelihood of bias in the overall aggregate re-sults. However, both the departmental and in-dependent agency results are reported whereparticularly appropriate. For 114 civilian de-partmental agency components and 48 inde-pendent agencies reporting, electronic technol-ogies have penetrated the majority of agenciesin every aspect of the information process. Therank order of technologies in operational useis listed in Table 2-7.

The survey results do not, of course, give theabsolute magnitude of each of the above as apercentage of total activity. They provide therelative use, and thus may tend to overstateactual use. In other words, the survey resultsindicate the percentages of agencies respond-ing that use a specific technology, but not the

absolute number of each technology in use. Forexample, 34 percent of civilian departmentalagencies report use of desktop publishing, butthe survey instrument did not ask nor did theagencies provide, the absolute number of desk-top publishing systems. Nonetheless, the qual-itative penetration levels of these technologiesare, overall, far greater than indicated in anyknown prior survey.

It is also noteworthy that significant percent-ages of civilian departmental agencies are cur-rently prototyping or pilot testing advancedtechnologies for information storage and dis-semination including those listed in Table 2-8.Also, it appears that about half of the civiliandepartmental components will soon have desk-top publishing systems (34 percent already haveoperational capability, and another 15 percentare prototyping or pilot-testing), about one-halfwill soon have electronic photocomposition ca-pability (44 percent now, plus 8 percent in pro-totyping or pilot-testing), and about one-thirdwill soon have electronic publishing systems(21 percent now, plus 11 percent prototypingor pilot-testing). For the independent agencies,more than one half will have desktop publish-ing (29 percent now, with another 31 percentprototyping or pilot-testing), onehalf alreadyhave electronic photocomposition (with another13 percent prototyping or pilot-testing), andabout two-fifths will have electronic publish-ing (31 percent now plus 13 percent in proto-type or pilot testing).

Where available, quantitative estimates ofFederal Government use of key technologiesare generally consistent with the results of theGAO survey. For example, based on all avail-able data, OTA estimates that the Federal mi-crocomputer inventory has increased from afew thousand in 1980 to (conservatively) over500,()()() today, with a million microcomputerslikely within 2 years if current agency procure-ment plans are fully implemented. The micro-computer is a key component of agency elec-tronic publishing and dissemination activities.OTA estimates that the Federal agency inven-tory of high-end electronic laser printers hasincreased from a handful in 1980 to severalhundred today, and low-end desktop laser

34

Table 2-7.—Agency Use of Information Technologies

Depart mentalTechnology agencies

Information collection/filingFloppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer (computer to computer). . . . . . . . .Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computerized telephone calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonpaper storageFloppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Micrographics (microfilm/fiche) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CD-ROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory) . . . . . . . . . . . .Optical disk (WORM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CD-I (Compact Disk-Interactive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Optical disk-erasable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PrintingComputer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laser and non-impact printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Photo-offset printing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computer-aided page makeup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic photocomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Desktop publishing systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic publishing systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Microform printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic disseminationFloppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Teleconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Broadcast TV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .One-way cableTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Digital cartographic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selective dissemination of info. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expert systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videotext/teletext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interactive cable TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CD-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Agencies, 1987

7364605018

766654

94100

6664545044342118

615850464635333016

9887443330

Independentagencies

6763564821

737371

68422

5881635250293129

586052405217333119

610

8228262

—

printers and desk top publishing software haveincreased from very few in 1980 to several tensof thousands today. Since a microcomputer,laser printer, and software are the major com-ponents of a desktop publishing system,OTAconservatively estimates that there are 30,000desktop publishing systems and 300 high-endelectronic publishing systems in the FederalGovernment.

The GAO survey results are generally con-sistent with the results of OTA’s own researchand contractor case studies of selected agen-cies. For example, all three military services(Army, Navy, and Air Force) as well as theOffice of the Secretary of Defense, have ma-jor electronic publishing and disseminationsystems under development or in operation.In the civilian sector, the U.S. Geological Sur-

35

Table 2-8.—Agency Prototyping or Testing ofAdvanced Technologies

Percent ofagencies responding

Departmental IndependentStorage technology agencies agencies

CD-ROM a . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 0CD-lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2WORM C . . . . . . . ., . 10 10

Dissemination technology

CD-ROM . . 11 10CD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2E x p e r t s y s t e m s . . . 7 8NOTESaCornpa ct Disk Read Only MemorybCompact Disk InteractiveCwr,te once Read Mawlmf=

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies 1987

vey and Bureau of the Census (among others)are col.laboratingon information disseminationvia Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) and digital cartographic technologies.A capsule description of selected highlights isgiven below.

● DoD, Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD): DoD is implementing the Com-puter-Aided Acquisition and LogisticsSupport (CALS) program designed as anintegrated system for the creation, stor-age, revision, and dissemination of tech-nical information relevant to weapon sys-tems. CALS is designed to use state-of-the-art electronic publishing technologyand incorporates an extensive set of tech-nical standards for electronic exchange ofinformation, page markup, graphics, andthe like. The objective is eventually to con-vert current paper flows of information todigital electronic flows, so that engineer-ing drawings, technical manuals, logisticsrecords, and life-cycle data are created andaccessed in electronic formats. CALS par-ticipants include OSD, Army, Navy, AirForce, the Defense Logistics Agency, andthe private defense contractors. TheCALS consolidated budget for DoD isroughly $150 million per year.

● DoD, Defense Technical Information Cen-ter (DTIC): DTIC, a component of the De-fense Logistics Agency, is implementinga Defense Applied Information Technol-

ogy Center, in cooperation with OSD andthe Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Center in-cludes four laboratories:1.

2.

3.

4.

Defense Gateway Laboratory, whichwill facilitate electronic access to over800 diverse DoD, commercial, and Fed-eral databases via the Defense Gate-way Information System, and will uti-lize user-friendly search software alongwith an online database catalog;High-Density Information SystemsLaboratory, which will develop high-density optical disk storage and re-trieval systems with electronic print-ing, publishing, and dissemination ca-pabilities;Artificial Intelligence/Decision Sup-port Laboratory, which will explorestate-of-the-art software for diagnos-tics, monitoring, control, and informa-tion retrieval, and will research the ap-plication of AI/expert system softwareand display techniques to defense in-formation needs, including online inter-facing with the Defense Gateway In-formation System; andInteractive Video Laser Disk SystemsLaboratory, which will explore ~nnova-tive disk techniques for training pro-spective users of the various high-technology systems under devel-opment.

● NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center(NGDC): NGDC has prepared a prototypeCD-ROM on selected geomagnetic andsolar-terrestrial physics data, includingdata on solar flares, sunspots, and wind.NGDC makes this data available to usersat reduced cost (e.g., the disks cost about$50 each at a volume of 600 copies–including costs of data preparation, soft-ware, premastering, mastering, and dupli-cation —compared to a cost of about $5OOfor the same data on magnetic tape). TheCD-ROM runs on any IBM-PC AT or XTor compatible microcomputer with 512kilobyte random access memory, 10 mega-byte hard-disk drive, standard floppy-diskdrive, and CD-ROM reader and softwareusing the High Sierra standard at a total

●

●

cost of under $4,000. By comparison, mag-netic tapes require a mainframe or mini-computer and peripheral equipment at atotal cost of several tens to hundreds ofthousands of dollars or more.DOI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS):USGS has prepared a prototype CD-ROMon mapping data for the Gulf of Mexico,known as Project Gloria. The prototypewas prepared with NOAA (which devel-oped the search software) and the JetPropulsion Laboratory (which developedan interactive image display program).The combined software permits the userto search the database by geographicalmapping areas, latitude, and longitude, andto display the data in graphic and varia-ble image formats. USGS views microcom-puter-based CD-ROM applications as thekey to dramatically improving access toand reducing the cost of many earthscience databases maintained by USGS,NOAA, NASA, and other Federal agen-cies, and, accordingly, has already pur-chased CD-ROM premastering equipment.DOC, Bureau of the Census: The CensusBureau offers a full range of products inelectronic format in addition to paper andmicrofiche. Electronic formats include:CENDATA, an online information serv-ice including press releases, statisticalsummaries, product announcements, andthe like, and available via DIALOG In-formation Services, a private vendor; elec-tronic bulletin boards that provide instan-taneous access to selected census data(including most CENDATA entries) toparticipants in the State Data Center pro-gram and the Federal-State CooperativeEstimates Program; floppy disks contain-

ing data from such Census reports as theCounty and City Data Book and CountyBusiness Patterns and, on request, datadownloaded from magnetic tapes in theCensus inventory; and magnetic tapesthat contain large volumes of Census data,frequently in more detail than is availablein the paper publications, and sell for $175per tape (6,250 bits per inch). In the fu-ture, CD-ROMs will be used for dissemi-nation of statistical data to microcom-puter users (Census has already preparedprototype disks and envisions a signifi-cant role for CD-ROM for distributing theresults of the 1990 census).

In the legislative branch, GPO has initiatedtechnology innovation projects in severalareas, including dial-up desktop to mainframeelectronic printing capability, dial-up fiber op-tic links for remote photocomposition, andlong-distance electronic data transfer. WhileGPO disseminates its information productsprimarily in paper format (and secondarily mic-rofiche), the majority of inputs to GPO is al-ready in electronic format. (GPO pilot projectsare discussed in ch. 4, 7, and 8. Other execu-tive agency electronic pilot projects are dis-cussed in ch. 3, 5, and 10.)

In sum, the current initiatives of the Fed-eral Government, taken as a whole, indicatea very significant use of advanced informationtechnology. While use varies widely by agency,and even within agencies, overall the govern-ment appears to be at or close to the thresh-old where technology-based electronic informa-tion dissemination can be a significant andintegral part of the Federal information infra-structure.

INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FEDERALINFORMATION DISSEMINATION

The primary institutional mechanisms used disseminated by numerous intermediary mech-for Federal information dissemination are the anisms, such as the press, libraries, interestFederal agencies themselves, GPO, NTIS, Con- groups, congressional offices, and the like.sumer Information Center (CIC, located inPueblo, CO), DLP, and private sector ven- Almost all Federal agencies, and certainlydors/contractors. Federal information is also all Cabinet departments, have some explicit

37— —.

statutory authority for information dissemi-nation and many have multiple statutory au-thorities. Because Federal agencies collectand/or develop the bulk of Federal information,they are generally the most knowledgeable abouttheir own information products and services, andfrequently are the best informed about the cur-rent and potential users of that information.Many agencies have formal and/or informalmechanisms to discuss information needs andproblems with users. According to the GAOsurvey results for 114 departmental agencycomponents, many agencies directly dissemi-nate a wide range of types and formats of Fed-eral information.

GPO, or more precisely the GPO Superin-tendent of Documents (SupDocs), is statutorilyauthorized to sell selected agency documentsto the general public. The documents selectedfor the GPO sales program represent only asmall fraction (a few percent) of all governmentpublications, and are ones judged by GPO mar-keting specialists to have significant demandand/or those that by law must be sold to thepublic. Documents sold by GPO cover a widerange of types of Federal information, but theformats are limited primarily to paper and mi-crofiche, with a few items available in magnetictape format. (See ch. 4 and 5 for further dis-cussion of SupDocs activities. )

NTIS, pursuant to public law, sells scientificand technical information provided by themission agencies. The types of informationproducts available from NTIS are much morelimited than those available from the agenciesor GPO, and are provided to NTIS on a volun-tary basis. NTIS products have very limiteddemand (about 10 copies per item) comparedto GPO products. NTIS sells primarily micro-fiche and paper formats, with some sales ofmagnetic tape and floppy disk formats. (Seech. 5 for further discussion of NTIS activities. )

CIC (operated on a reimbursable basis byGPO for the General Services Administration),pursuant to public law, primarily facilitatesthe distribution of consumer-oriented pamph-lets and bulletins from the agencies. These ma-terials are usually short and are available freeor at a small fee. CIC products are limited topaper formats.

DLP is a cooperative program by whichagency documents, whether or not they aresold via GPO or NTIS, are provided to a net-work of about 1,400 libraries around the UnitedStates. Over 50 regional depository librariesreceive all documents distributed, while theother depository libraries select which typesof documents or titles they wish to receive.DLP was established by public law and is oper-ated by GPO. It serves as part of an “infor-mation safety net by which the governmentfunds the distribution of materials to desig-nated libraries. DLP includes all types of Fed-eral information, but has been limited, untilnow, to paper and microfiche formats. (See ch.6 and 7 for further discussion of DLPactivities. )

Finally, private sector contractors play a rolein disseminating information for many of theagencies. Since, in general, government infor-mation cannot be copyrighted, numerous pri-vate sector vendors repackage, add value, andsell or resell a wide variety of types of Federalinformation in a wide variety of formats. Thedissemination of agricultural information de-veloped by the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) provides a good illustration of theprivate sector role. USDA information is dis-seminated directly by agency components,through private contractors, via private sec-tor online gateways, and by private sectorvalue-added providers. For example, the ED I(Electronic Dissemination of Information)service is provided online on a fee-for-servicebasis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) through a contract with Martin Mari-etta Corporation. ED I provides time-sensitivedaily, weekly, and monthly reports and newsreleases from USDA agencies. AGRICOLA, anextensive USDA bibliographic reference data-base on all aspects of agriculture, is providedonline via DIALOG Information Services, acommercial database vendor. USDA Online,a USDA current information service includ-ing news releases and short reports, is providedvia ITT Dialcom, a commercial online elec-tronic mail gateway.

ED I, AGRICOLA, and USDA Online are in-formation products developed by USDA, butdisseminated online via private vendors or

. . ,—, . ..— ., ., “

38

contractors. There are also many online infor-mation products that make use of USDA in-formation, but are developed as well as dissem-inated by the private sector. For example,Deane Publishing sells AgLine, an online in-formation service that covers USDA dailycommodity reports and updates and also offerselectronic mail and software capabilities. Pi-oneer Hi-Bred International sells AGRIBUS-INESS U. S. A., a comprehensive online data-base that indexes agricultural business, trade,and government publications. This databaseis available via DIALOG Information Serv-ices, a commercial vendor. As a final example,Vance publishing sells ProNet, an online newsand information service on the produce indus-try that incorporates a variety of price, mar-ket, weather, and related information fromUSDA and elsewhere.

The GAO survey results indicate that the114 civilian departmental agency componentsresponding use several institutional mecha-nisms for information dissemination with re-spect to the formats indicated, as shown in Ta-ble 2-9.

This highlights one of the key characteris-tics of the current Federal information infra-structure: while individual Federal agenciesand private companies disseminate Federal in-formation in paper and electronic formats, thecentral governmentwide dissemination mech-anisms are presently limited largely to paper(or paper and microfiche). Both GPO/SupDocsand NTIS sell a small number of products inelectronic format, but this represents an insig-nificant percentage of total sales volume foreither.

The four governmentwide disseminationagencies collectively distribute about 107 mil-lion copies of documents (in paper or micro-fiche format) per year, as summarized in Ta-ble 2-10.

Of these dissemination agencies, onlyGPO/SupDocs and NTIS maintain customerprofiles. Percentage estimates are shown in Ta-ble 2-11. The profiles for SupDocs and NTISare fairly similar, although the use of differ-ent categories makes comparisons somewhatdifficult. In any event, the largest customergroup is business. To keep this in perspective,consumers are, by definition, the primary cus-tomer group for CIC, and the libraries are theprimary DLP customers. Of course, librarieslargely serve an intermediary role, and the ulti-mate customers of DLP are the patrons of theindividual depository libraries. DLP does notat present maintain comprehensive user sta-tistics, although a survey is in progress. How-ever, a 1985 estimate suggests that over 10million persons use DLP each year, as detailedin Table 2-12, although these estimates havenot been validated.

The GAO survey attempted to measureagency satisfaction with the various dissemi-nation channels for typical agency reports (i.e.,50-100 pages, paper format, typeset, somegraphics, specified deadline). There are numer-ous problems in interpreting and using thesedata. Not surprisingly, the civilian depart-mental agencies rated their own disseminationservices as generally of high quality, timely,and moderate to low in cost for paper prod-ucts. This is, of course, a self-assessment, and

Table 2-9.—Federal Agency Use of Institutional Mechanisms for Information Dissemination, by Format—

Percent of agencies responding

ElectronicElect ronic data Magnetic Floppy

Institution Paper Microfiche mail transfer tape/disk disk

Own agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 11 25 9 40 33Gpo/Sup Docs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9 1 1 3NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 23 1 — : 7CIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — — —

Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

— —

12 — — 2 1Private sector vendors/contractors . . . . . . . . . . 48 7 9 3 15 11

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

39

Table 2“10.—Approximate Distribution Volume,Fiscal Year 1987

Dissemination Distribution volumeagency (millions of copies)

GPO/SupDocs (free)a . . . . . . . . . . . . 30GPO/SupDocs (sales)b ., . . . . . . . . . . 27NTIS (sales ., ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . 6CIC (free) ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21DLP (free) ., ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Total ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

aB law and req:hde~c,#:aMe

SOURCE US Government Prlntlng Office and National Techn!cal InformationSewIce 1988

Table 2”ll.— GPO/SupDocs and NTIS SalesDistribution, Fiscal Year 1987

Percent of total sales—GPOI

SupDocs NTIS

Business . 59- 64(U.S. only)–

Pr iva te ind iv idua ls . 27 4 (generalpublic)

Foreign . ..., . . . —a 20 (business andgovernment)

Federal, State, andlocal government . 8 6

Universities andc o l l e g e s 6 6 (includes pub-

lic libraries)a GPO foreign customers Included In all other categories as appropriate exceptGovernment

SOURCE U S Government Prtntlng Off Ice and National Technical InformationService 1988

Table 2-12.—Estimated Use of DepositoryLibraries, Fiscal Year 1985

—Actual a Projected b

No, Ilbrarles reporting . . . . . . 1,188 - 1,400Avg. no. weekly users

per library . . . . . . . . . . . 141 141Total weekly users . . . . 167,508 197,400Total annual users . ........8,710,416 10,264,800a Based on I Ibrary estimates, numbers not valldated and may tnclude undercounts,overcounts, or doublecounts (multlple users per person)

b Projects the average use based on the 1,188 Ilbrarles reporting to all of the ap-proximate 1,400 depository Ilbrarles

SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice and Office of Technology Assessment,1988

its validity cannot be objectively determinedfrom the survey results. Agencies rated GPOslightly lower in timeliness and slightly higherin cost for paper products relative to agencyviews of themselves. NTIS was rated by agen-cies as somewhat lower in quality and timeli-ness and higher in cost for paper products.

DLP was evaluated as slightly less timely.Commercial vendors were rated about the sameas the agency itself. The full comparative dataare shown in Table 2-13 (normalized to 100 per-cent) and expressed as a percentage of theagencies responding to each question, basedon 114 civilian departmental components re-sponding.

Given the subjective and general nature ofthe agency evaluations, these results shouldbe interpreted cautiously. For example, the per-ceived problems with the quality and timeli-ness of NTIS documents could be due largelyto poor quality and late delivery of copies pro-vided to NTIS by source agencies. Also, theperception that GPO, NTIS, and DLP dissem-ination is less timely than agency dissemina-tion could reflect the role of GPO and NTISas secondary rather than primary distributorsof agency documents and the delays inherentin a secondary role. And the perception thatNTIS documents are more costly than agency,GPO, and commercial sources may reflect thevery low volume of sales per NTIS title (andresulting higher per unit costs). Finally, someof the agency responses appear to be question-able. For example, the majority of agenciesrated the cost of DLP dissemination as mod-erate (rather than low or very low), yet for manyagencies there is no cost for DLP dissemina-tion. Agencies only pay printing and bindingcosts when they provide copies directly to DLPfor documents not produced by or procuredfrom GPO.

The GAO survey requested additional evalu-ation detail for GPO. The results indicated thatthe majority of the departmental agency com-ponents responding were satisfied or verysatisfied with publications layout, composi-tion, printing quality, printing timeliness, bind-ing, cataloging, marketing/sales, distribution,and depository library services provided byGPO. The one area where one-half were neu-tral (neither satisfied or dissatisfied) or dissat-isfied was printing cost. Some dissatisfactionwas also indicated with respect to market-ing/sales, printing timeliness, and distribution,as indicated in Table 2-14 (in normalized per-centages), based on the civilian departmental

40

Table 2-13.—Federal Civilian Departmental Agency Evaluationof Information Dissemination Channels

QUALITYPercent of agencies responding

Dissemination channel Very high High Moderate Low Very lowAgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 45.2

—25.0 - -

GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—

20.9 56.9 19.4 1,4 1-4NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 30,0 30.0 25,0 2.5Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 50.0 5.0DLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

— —19.3 44.2 34.6 1.9

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—

22.2 53.7 22,2 1.9 —

TIMELINESSPercent of agencies responding

Moderate Some Little or noDissemination channel Very great Great extent extent extentAgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,9 45.2- 23.1 2,9 1.0GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 31.5 45,2 11.0 2.7NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 22.5 57.5 10.0 10.0Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 36.8 31.6 10.5DIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—14.8 25.9 50.0 3.7 5,6

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 37.0 40.7 7,4 1.9

COSTPercent of agencies responding

Dissemination channel Very high High Moderate Lo~ Very lowAgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 15.3 63.5 13,5 ‘5.8 -

GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 23.3 61.6 8.2NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—22.5 45.0 27.5 2.5 2.5

Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 15.0 65.0 5.0 15.0DLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 7,5 56.6 11.4 22.6Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14.8 79.6 5.6 —SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

agency components responding. Note that ofthe l14 agency components that participated,the number that actually commented on spe-cific GPO services ranged from 54 to 91, asindicated inTable 2-14. These 1987 GAO sur-vey results can be compared with the resultsof a 1987 survey conducted by the Federal Pub-lishers Committee(FPC~ an interagency groupof printing, publishing, and public informationofficials, and a 1983 survey conducted by GPOitself. While the FPC survey included manyother topics, it did cover several cost, timeli-ness, and marketing/distribution topics, withthe results indicated in Table 2-15. The FPCsurvey results must be interpreted cautiouslysince the overall response rate was only about10percent (48respondents out of the475per-sons who were sent the questionnaire). FPChas noted thatthe48respondents included offi-cials from nine cabinet departments (Agricul-

Table 2-14.—Federal Civilian DepartmentalEvaluations of GPO Services

—Percent of

agencies responding

GPOService No,a Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Publications layout . . . 47 ‘78.0 12.0 10.0”/0Composi t ion . . . , . . , . . 66 81.5 10.8 7,7Printing quality . . . . . . 91 80.0 12.2 7.8Printing timeliness . . . 91 66.7 17.8 15.6Printing cost . . . . . . . . 87 50.0 36.0 14.0Binding . . . . . . . . . . . 82 74,1 19,7 6.2Cataloging . . . . . . . . 39 73,0 24,3 2.7Marketing/sales . . . . . 57 57.9 26.3 15.8Distribution . . . . . . 67 67.2 21,9 10.9Depository library . . . . 54 78.9 19,3 1.8aNumberof agency components commenting on each GPO serviceSOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Agencies, 1987

ture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health andHuman Services, Housing and Urban Devel-opment, Interior, Justice, and Labor) andabout a dozen independent agencies. FPC has

Table 2-15. —Federal Publishers Committee Surveyof GPO Services, Selected Results

Number of respondents

NeedsArea of concern Adequate I m provement

Bllllng delays andd i s c r e p a n c i e s . . , . , . 8 29

Cost of GPO lnhouse work ., 9 7Delivery date reliability. 14 22Quallty, timeliness, and cost

controls of GPO contractors 11 25Accuracy and adequacy of

S U PD O C S sa les in format ion 13 11SOURCE Fed2rd\ Publishers Committee Survey 1987

submitted the complete survey results and re-lated recommendations to GPO for commentand followup action where appropriate. ]

In 1983, the GPO Inspector General con-ducted an audit of customer satisfaction withGPO services, based on a questionnaire sentto agency customers. The response rate wasover 90 percent, with 125 out of 136 agenciescompleting the questionnaire. Six areas ap-peared to be of greatest concern to customers,with 38 to 70 percent of the respondents dis-satisfied at least some of the time with regardto:

1. lack of advance notice to agencies whendue dates slip;

2. failure to complete jobs on time;3. failure to bill jobs in a timely manner;

‘Nlemorandum from <John 11. hlounts, Chairman, Federal Pub-lishers (’omrnittee, to Ralph E;. Kennickell, ,Jr., I’uhlic Print~r,on ‘‘ Recommendations from Federal I’uhlishers C’ommit tee to(;oiernment Printing Off ice,” hla~’ 13, 1 Wfi.

4,

5.

6.

41

failure to provide accurate cost estimatesin a timely manner;improper or unclear levying of surcharges;andimproper packaging, labeling, or deliver-ing of jobs by GPO contractors.

This survey is, of course, dated, and GPO hasnot conducted a similar followup survey.

In addition to being 5 years old, the 1983GPO survey has been criticized because it wasbased on the opinions and perceptions ofGPO’s customer agencies. The GPO Inspec-tor General did not attempt to validate the re-sponses by checking records or seeking cor-roboration from multiple sources within agiven agency. However, the 1987 GAO andFPC surveys are subject to this same criticism.

Taking all information into account, thereappears to be overall satisfaction with GPOservices with respect to traditional ink-on-paper composition, printing, and binding, butcontinuing dissatisfaction among some agen-cies with respect to cost, timeliness, estimat-ing and billing procedures, and, possibly, mar-keting/distribution of printed products. GPOhas instituted improvements in its customerservice operations in recent years. And FPChas acknowledged that GPO “has greatly in-creased its responsiveness to agency needs;but FPC “is not satisfied that many of the long-standing problems are being resolved. Op-portunities for further improvement are con-sidered in chapters 4 and 11.

‘Ibid.

Chapter 3

Key Technology TrendsRelevant to Federal

Information Dissemination

i.Clockwise from top left: National Library of Medicine CD-ROM Disk (phottcredit: Doug Jones, National Library of Medicine); satellite (photo creditUSA Today, all rights reserved); and gallery of Bureau of the Census dati

products (photo credit: Neil Tillman, Bureau of the Census).

)

CONTENTS

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Systems Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Microcomputer Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Continuing Role of Paper and Microform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Desktop Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High-End Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic Forms Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computer Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scanners and Printers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Online Information Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expert Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

454747484951515254545557575860616364

Chapter 3

Key Technology Trends Relevant toFederal Information Dissemination

SUMMARY

The results of the General Accounting Of-fice (GAO) surveys of Federal informationusers (see chapter 4) and prior studies on thefuture of paper and paper-based media (such ●

as books) indicate that paper is expected todecline only marginally as a preferred formatin the next few years, although this declinecould become significant for specific types ofinformation (e.g., bibliographic, reference, sta-tistical, scientific, and technical) that are highly ●

suited to electronic access and manipulation.The outlook for microform is less favorable.Microfilm is currently used very little for Fed-eral information dissemination; microfiche, ●

while used extensively, is expected to declinesignificantly as a preferred format, except forrecords storage and archival purposes.

In sharp contrast, the GAO surveys of Fed-eral agencies (see ch. 2) and Federal informa-tion users (ch. 4) indicate that plans and prefer- ●

ences for dissemination in electronic formats(e.g., electronic mail and bulletin boards, opti-cal disks) are projected to increase dramat-ically.

This chapter surveys a number of major tech- ,

nologies and key technical trends relevant toFederal information dissemination. Severalkey technical trends are expected to continueconservatively for 3 to 5 years and in manycases for at least 10 years, and are combiningin such a way that most of these plans andpreferences are likely to become reality. These

c

trends include:

● continued steady improvement in theprice/performance of microcomputers,which already bring the power of main-frame computers to the desktop at thecost of a stereo set; microcomputers pro-

vide the technological underpinning fornumerous information collection, process-ing, and dissemination activities;continued, rapid proliferation of desktoppublishing systems, comprised of amicrocomputer, nonimpact printer, andpage composition software (and some-times a scanner for paper input) in themost basic configuration;continued, rapid improvement in thepower of desktop publishing software tohandle more complex documents, formats,fonts, and the like;continued, steady improvement in theprice/performance of nonimpact printers,with low-cost desktop printers offeringoutput quality acceptable for most docu-ments, and high-end printers offeringquality comparable to some phototype-setters;similar improvement in the price/perform-ance of scanners, with the capability ofhigh-end scanners (to handle a wide rangeof type styles and sizes) migrating to desk-top scanners;as a combined result of the above trends,overall continued improvement in the abil-ity of desktop systems to produce higherquality, more complex documents, thusfurther reducing the gap between desktopand high-end electronic publishing andphototypesetting systems;for complex, large-volume, and/or large in-stitutional applications, continued im-provement in high-end electronic publish-ing characterized by:–declining cost of software and work-

stations;—increasingly heavy competition between

desktop and high-end systems;

45

46

●

●

●

●

—rapidly growing networking of desktopand high-end systems;

—rapidly growing networking of worksta-tions with high-end nonimpact printersand phototypesetters;—increasingly heavy competition be-

tween and among software, worksta-tion, phototypesetter, and computerequipment vendors, as well as sys-tems integrators and service bureausand;

—continued migration of electronic pub-lishing to other applications such asforms management and multi-formatoutput;

continued, rapid increase in the numberand use of computerized online informa-tion services, especially for informationsearch and retrieval, electronic display,and remote printing-on-demand whenneeded;continued, steady increase in the numberof online information gateways that pro-vide the channels for electronic informa-tion exchange (such as electronic datatransfer, mail, facsimile, and bulletinboards), but not the information itself;these gateways include common carriers(interexchange and bell operating compa-nies), value-added companies, and non-profit and governmental systems;continued advances in the telecommuni-cation technologies that underlie online in-formation services and gateways, includ-ing packet switching, fiber optics, satellitenetworking, FM subcarrier transmission,and integrated switched digital systems;rapid advances in optical disk technologiesand applications, especially for purposesof information storage and dissemination;advances include:—accelerating penetration of Compact

Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) as

●

●

remaining standards issues are re-solved;

—maturation of Write Once Read Many-times (WORM) and erasable opticaldisks (compact and full size) as technol-ogy stabilizes and standards are estab-lished;

—emergence of Compact Disk-Interactive(CD-I) and other optical disk appli-cations;

rapid advances in development of expertsystems applicable to many aspects of in-formation dissemination-including tech-nical writing, indexing, information re-trieval, and printing management; andcontinued, steady progress in develop-ment and acceptance of standards for tele-communication, data transfer, opticaldisks, and page description and textmarkup.

The net, cumulative effect of these techni-cal trends is to afford the Federal Governmentthe opportunity to realize the kind of signifi-cant performance improvements and cost re-ductions that have been demonstrated in theprivate sector. Also, the convergence of thesetechnical trends, along with progress instandards-setting, makes information systemsintegration a real possibility for the FederalGovernment and other users. Systems integra-tion permits the coupling of input, storage,processing, and output technologies in waysthat permit multi-media (e.g., paper, micro-form, online electronic, and stored electronic)dissemination from the same electronic data-base. In essence, the key technologies and tech-nical trends highlighted above are central tothe emerging movement towards systems in-tegration.

47

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

A major objective of this study is to iden-tify and discuss new or evolving ways in whichinformation technology can or might be appliedby the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),National Technical Information Service(NTIS), and other Federal agencies to the dis-semination of Federal information. An impor-tant step in this process is the identificationof key technology trends that are relevant toinformation dissemination.

OTA has surveyed a representative cross-section of major technologies relevant to in-formation dissemination. The presentation inthis chapter emphasizes electronic technol-ogies, although paper and microform are dis-cussed briefly. Conventional ink-on-paperprinting technologies, including prepress andbinding, are considered in chapter 4 in the con-text of alternative futures for GPO. As dis-cussed in chapter 4, GPO has already upgradedits conventional printing technology to a levelcomparable to most of the private printing in-dustry, However, GPO has much less experi-ence with online information systems, expertsystems, optical disks, and high-end electronicpublishing. NTIS is in a similar situation (seech. 5), as is the Depository Library Program(DLP). Libraries in general, especially thelarger research libraries, have more experiencewith electronic systems (see ch. 6). Thus, thischapter is highly relevant to general consider-ation of future technological directions forGPO, NTIS, and DLP, as well as the Federalmission agencies.

This chapter emphasizes significant currentor emerging technical trends that are expectedto persist for at least 3 to 5 years into the fu-ture. In many instances, the key trends arelikely to continue even longer–perhaps for 10years or more. In the aggregate, the trends pro-vide what OTA believes is a reliable overalltechnology planning framework for Federal in-formation dissemination. However, the pres-entation in this chapter is not intended to beused in the evaluation and selection of specificequipment and systems. Some examples ofequipment, vendors, and/or applications are pro-

vided, but for illustrative purposes only. Somecost and performance data also are included forillustrative purposes only. These data changerapidly, and should be checked with vendors ifproduct or service-specific evaluation is contem-plated. Also, the presentation is geared to thelevel of the informed lay person, not to the tech-nical specialist. For discussion of specializedinformation technologies not included here(e.g., digital data tapes, digital cartographicsystems), the reader should consult a forthcom-ing OTA staff paper on Federal Scientific andTechnical Information Dissemination. Finally,for the discussion of telecommunication tech-nologies not covered here (e.g., digital facsi-mile, videotext, cable television), the readershould consult OTA’S forthcoming report onCommumnications Systems for An informationAge (1989).

Information Systems Integration

One important finding is that a combinationof technological advances, cost reductions, andcurrent or pending standards has opened upfor the first time a real possibility of informa-tion systems integration in the Federal Gov-ernment. The importance of this developmentcannot be overstated. Until recently, the Fed-eral Government, along with other major in-formation system users, had no choice but toobtain an essentially incompatible complementof information technology hardware and soft-ware, such that system integration across thegovernment and major agencies was very dif-ficult, if not impossible. Integration of specificsystems within agencies was possible. Buteven here, major integration efforts, for exam-ple in the Department of Defense, still led tonumerous incompatible systems.

The relevance to Federal information dissem-ination is immediate and direct. It is now pos-sible to conceive of, plan for, design, andimplement an integrated information dissem-ination system (or more likely a network or hi-erarchy of systems) for the Federal Govern-ment. This is possible because of advances in

48

a whole range of relevant technologies-includ-ing input, storage, processing, and outputtechnologies-that can deal with the entirerange of media, including paper, microform,magnetic disk, optical disk, and direct elec-tronic. And the cost/performance trends inthese technologies are likely to make a widerange of applications cost-effective when com-pared to conventional methods.

Two other related trends are equally impor-tant. One is the trend toward standards forsystems interconnection at the hardware, soft-ware, and applications levels. There is strongmovement among the vendor and user com-munities and in the various national and in-ternational standards bodies towards a hier-archy of standards that will make it possiblefor a wide range of information systems to talkwith and exchange information with eachother.

Another trend is the rapid penetration ofcomputerized information systems in all sec-tors of society, but especially in the business,educational, and research communities. Thismeans that many of those who provide infor-mation to the government and use informationfrom the government can now or soon be elec-tronically connected, and can, where appropri-ate, send and receive information in a varietyof electronic formats. This in no way suggestsan end to paper-based information products—but only that paper can be used where it isreally needed and in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

Realizing this potential for information sys-tems integration requires, of course, more thanjust the technology and standards. A varietyof institutional and policy changes maybe nec-essary, and various alternatives will be dis-cussed in later chapters.

Nonetheless, it appears that the technology,the industry, the standards, and the govern-ment are all moving towards systems integra-tion. It is now possible to envision, in the rela-tively short term, a Federal information

dissemination environment that includes thefollowing illustrative elements:

document/data entry (e.g., scanning, wordprocessing, facsimile);document revision/composition (e.g., elec-tronic publishing-desktop and high-end,computer graphics);document storage (e.g., electronic data-base, optical disk);document output (e.g., electronic publish-ing, laser printing, photo offset); anddocument distribution (e.g., optical disk,electronic mail, computer diskette, onlineelectronic, paper copies, microform).

Indeed, electronic publishing can be viewedas a key integrative technology because it canserve to integrate the various formats (paperand microform as well as electronic) of infor-mation input, processing, storage, and outputwithin a common technical framework. Elec-tronic publishing can also serve to connect thevarious so-called islands of automation in anorganization-office automation, publishingsystems, database systems, records manage-ment, document storage systems, and the like.Standards on information exchange are criti-cal, as is the need to find ways for the peoplewho work in various areas of automation towork more effectively together.

The Microcomputer Revolution

Most Federal Government information is ei-ther collected from the private sector, State/lo-cal government, and the general public, or iscreated by Federal employees and contractorsas the result of studies, analyses, research, andthe like. Even information collected from out-side the government is frequently subject toanalysis by Federal employees, and in thatsense has a creative or value-added aspect.

The dominant technology relevant to the col-lection and creation of Federal information isthe microcomputer. Over the last 5 years orso, the United States has witnessed a revolu-

49.-

tion in computer technology that has broughtthe power of the mainframe computer to thedesk of millions of public and private sectoremployees and citizens. And this revolutionis expected to continue for at least another 5years.

The sheer magnitude of this microcomputerrevolution can be measured in many differentways. For example, the Federal Governmentitself has gone from only a few thousand microsin 1980 to roughly 200,000 in 1986 to 500,000in 1988 to a projected 1 million by 1990. Thepercentage of school districts with computershad already increased from about 18 percentin 1981 to over 90 percent by 1985, accordingto the National Center for Educational Statis-tics. ’ In the business community, microcom-puters drew even in total computing powerwith mainframes and superminis as of 1985and are projected to dominate by 1990, accord-ing to Dataquest. z Indeed, various projec-tions show microcomputers growing at anaverage 10 to 15 percent through 1990, com-pared to about 5 percent for mainframes andsuperminis. The logic of this trend is under-standable when one considers that the IBMpersonal computer systems, selling for lessthan $10,000 are equivalent in computingpower (measured in millions of instructions persecond) to the IBM 370-168 mainframe com-puters that sold for several million dollars whenintroduced in the mid-1970s.

Even the home market has had significantmicrocomputer penetration, with about 19 mil-lion households buying a microcomputer since1981 (about 14 percent of all households).’Link Resources projects an ultimate homepenetration of about 35 percent, although thismay be conservative if full function microcom-

‘Cited in tJ. Bloomdecker, Computer (%rne, Computer Secu-rity, Computer Ethics (Los Angeles, Calif. National Center forComputer Crime Data. 1986).

‘Cited in G. Lewis, Zoom! Here Come the New Micros, ”Business W’eek, Nov. 1, 1986 pp. 82-92.

‘F;. Roth, ‘*Power Surge in Personal Computers, ” EditoriafResearch Reports, vol. 1, No. 1, ,Jan. 9, 1987, p. 4.

puters drop to the $300-500 price range in thenext 3-5 years.4 This would place themicrocomputer in the same price range as agood quality 19-inch color television.

The continuous improvement in price/per-formance of microcomputers is driven in partby advances in semiconductor chip technology,which shows no signs of slowing down. The32-bit chip family (such as the Intel 80386 orthe Motorola 68020) made possible the latestpersonal computer systems that are more pow-erful, more user friendly, and more compati-ble with each other. Price/performance is ex-pected to continue to improve as the 32-bitchips are further assimilated in microcomputerproduct offerings and as next generation mi-crocomputers are developed and introduced.

The important impact on Federal informa-tion collection and creation is that an alreadylarge and increasing amount of information isgenerated in electronic form, that is, by cap-turing electronic keystrokes with a microcom-puter or word processor. Today, much of thiselectronic information is submitted to or pro-vided by the government in paper form. Butthe potential exists to substantially reduce theamount of rekeyboarding, and presumably thecost of such information, by maintaining theinformation in electronic form as long aspossible.

The Continuing Role of Paper andMicroform

A note of caution with respect to the roleof paper is in order. Despite the dramatic in-crease in computer technology and electronicinformation, paper documents are expected tohave a continuing, major role for severalreasons. First and foremost, for documents ofsignificant length, research has found thatreading from a computer screen is much moredifficult than reading from paper, despite im-provements in the design and resolution of

‘Ibid, p. 6.

50

screens and terminals. Even extensive prac-tice at electronic reading does not appear tomake a significant difference. Second, papercontinues to be a more convenient and porta-ble medium for many purposes, and accommo-dates a wide range of reading styles and loca-tions. Third, for many documents, paper is stilla bargain, although this is changing with theadvent of optical disk storage technology. Andof course, electronic publishing can signifi-cantly increase the efficiency of paper use,even when the final product is still in paperformat. Fourth, the paper format (especiallyfor lengthy reports and books) permits thereader to browse through material and use avariety of conscious or subconscious searchpatterns that may be difficult if not impossi-ble to replicate even with today’s computer-based search and retrieval software. Readingpaper formats can lead to greater compre-hension.

Overall, most studies on the future of paperand paper-based media (such as books) haveconcluded that the paper format will play a ma-jor role as a medium of information storage,exchange, and dissemination for the foresee-able future.5 The results of the GAO surveysof Federal information users (summarized inch. 4) indicate that paper is expected to holdsteady or decline only marginally as a preferredformat in the next few years, although this de-cline could become significant for specific typesof information (e.g., bibliographic, reference,and statistical) that are highly suited to elec-tronic access and manipulation. At the sametime, the preference for electronic formats (e.g.,electronic mail and bulletin boards, floppydisks, and compact optical disks) is expectedto increase dramatically.

The outlook for microform (microfilm and mi-crofiche) is not as favorable as for paper or elec-tronic formats, but there is likely to be con-

%ee, for example, Priscilla Oakeskott and Clive Bradley(eds.), The Future of the Book: Part I -- The Impact of New Tech-nologies ( Paris Unesco, 1982); U.S. Congress, Joint Commit-tee on the Library, Books in Our Future, A Report From theLibrarian of Congress to the Congress, S. Print 98-231, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1984; John Y.Cole, Books in Our Future: Perspectives and Proposals (Libraryof Congress, Washington, D.C. 1987).

tinuing significant use of microforms forrecords storage and archival purposes for theforeseeable future, or at least until electronicalternatives have been fully established andstood the test of time. Microform is well suitedfor archival purposes because it requires lessstorage space (compared to paper), has a longershelf life (compared to paper and electronic,although this may change), is a stable accesstechnology (compared to electronic), and islower in cost (compared to paper and some elec-tronic).’ Microform offers a lifetime of 100+years, whereas the lifetime of acidic paper isperhaps several decades, and magnetic media(tape and disks) a few years to a decade or two.The main competitive threats to microform forarchival purposes are from acid-free paper(which can last 100 + years, but would still re-quire more storage space and be more costlythan microform) and optical disks. Opticaldisks do not as yet have proven archival capa-bility (although manufacturers are claiming40+ years), require less storage space, and canbe less expensive than microform. Microformis likely to continue as a major archival mediumat least until optical disks (or some relatedelectronic-storage technology) are well estab-lished.

However, for many nonarchival purposes,microform is not the preferred medium eventoday. For reading lengthy written materials,users find microform to be inconvenient, un-comfortable, and inefficient compared to pa-per. For information search and retrieval, usersfrequently prefer electronic formats, includingonline database systems as well as, increas-ingly, offline media such as CD-ROMs. The re-sults of the GAO surveys of Federal informa-tion users (summarized inch. 4) indicate thatmicrofilm is little used today for Federal in-

%ee, for example, Kenneth E. Dowlin, The Electronic Li-brary: The Prorm”se and the Process, (New York, Neal-Schuman,1984; F.W. Lancaster, Libraries and Libraries in An Age of Elec-tronics (Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, Arling-ton, VA, 1982); Edward Gray, “The Rise and Fall of Techno-logical Applications: Considerations on Microforms and TheirPossible Successor, ” International Journal of Micrographicsand Video Technology, vol. 15, No. 1, 1986, pp. 31-38; NationalResearch Council, Committee on Preservation of HistoricalRecords, Preservation of Historical Records ( Washington, DC,National Academy Press, 1986).

formation dissemination, and that microfiche,while used extensively, is expected to declinesignificantly as the desired format for dissem-ination of many types of Federal information.It should be noted, however, that the micro-graphics industry is itself using electronic tech-nology to continuously upgrade microform ac-cess technologies, such as computer-assistedmicrofiche retrieval systems and computer-output microfilm systems.7 AIso, the tecol-ogy for microfiche to paper conversion con-tinues to advance. For example, the DefenseTechnical Information Center recently fundedthe development and installation of duplex(two-sided) microfiche copier machines.

In sum, however, the current and future useof paper, microform, and electronic formats will

‘See, for example, Coopers and Lybrand, Information andImage Management: The Industry and the Technolo@”es, studyconducted for Association for Information and Image Manage-ment, Sil\’er Spring, MD, 1987.

51

depend largely on the type of information andthe type of information user. The kinds of cri-teria that will be relevant in selecting formatinclude:

amount of information to be stored, ac-cessed, and/or distributed;amount of storage space available;frequency of information access or re-trieval;length of time information is to be stored;desired speed of access or retrieval;costs of storage, access, and retrieval;number of users; andtechnical expertise of users.

The rest of this chapter focuses on several keyelectronic technologies relevant to Federal in-formation dissemination. The price/perform-ance characteristics of these technologies makethem highly competitive with paper and micro-form for those types of information well suitedfor electronic formats.

ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING

Desktop Publishing

One of the microcomputer applications mostrelevant to this study is desktop publishing.Desktop publishing combines elements of ad-vanced word-processing and computerizedpage layout and composition systems. Desk-top publishing can be defined as a set of hard-ware and software, including a multifunctionpersonal computer, which has the ability toproduce near-typeset quality output, and uti-lizing multiple type fonts, sizes, and styles andmultiple page layouts. The characteristics ofdesktop publishing are:

low cost (about $10,000 for an entiresystem),user-friendly software (frequently employ-ing icons and a mouse and a ‘what you seeis what you get or WYSIWYG screen dis-play) that requires minimal training,near-typeset quality output (but still con-siderably less than high-quality book andmagazine printing, for example), and

● relatively simple and straightforward doc-uments (although the desktop publishingsoftware is much more sophisticated thantypical word-processing software).

A typical desktop publishing configurationincludes:

●

●

●

●

a microcomputer with mouse or digitiz-ing tablet, keyboard, and screen (roughly$2,000 to $4,000 inclusive);page composition software (about $500 to$1,000);a low-end laser printer (about $1,500 to$3,000); anda low-end scanner for paper input (about$2,000 to $4,000).

Desktop publishing is expected to becomea standard part of personal computing, and togrow significantly over the next several years.Growth in desktop publishing reflects the sub-stantial potential savings for those types of

52

documents that do not require higher levelsof quality and complexity. For simple reports,newsletters, pamphlets, and the like, desktoppublishing can cut composition costs from the$50 or more per page range (for commercialcomposition and typesetting) to the $1 to $5per page range. Compared to straight word-processing text, desktop publishing can reducethe page length by perhaps 40 percent on aver-age, and this translates into substantial sav-ings from reduced paper and mailing costs.There are also major savings from a stream-lined revision process, minimal rekeyboarding,and the ability to store text and graphics forfuture use and revision.

Two significant limitations of the low-enddesktop publishing are limited ability to dealwith complex documents (e.g., complicated lay-outs using text and graphics) and limited printquality (due to the typical 240 dots per inch(dpi) or 300 dpi resolution of low~nd laserprinter output). The first limitation is beingmitigated rapidly by ever more powerful desk-top publishing software releases. Also, userscan invest in more sophisticated software and,if necessary, obtain software that supportsphototypesetters as well as laser printers. Fi-nally, low-end laser printers are improving out-put resolution, thus reducing the print qual-ity differential between laser printers andphototypesetters.

Desktop publishing has made dramatic in-roads in the newspaper and newsletter indus-tries. An estimated 80 percent of newspaperswith a circulation of over 100,000 use Mac-intosh-based desktop publishing, including theWall Street Journal and USA Today, as do anestimated 75 percent of newspapers with a cir-culation over 50,000.H Knight Ridder and theGannett Corp. are using desktop publishingsystems to create and distribute graphic de-signs nationwide. While major newspapersgenerally use photocomposition equipment fortypesetting in order to get higher print qual-ity, newsletter and some small newspaper pub-

“F. Seghers, “In News Graphics, Macintosh Makes the FrontPage, ” Business Week, Jan. 19, 1987, p. 87.

lishers frequently find that laser printer type-setting quality is good enough.

The potential implications of desktop pub-lishing for Federal information disseminationseem just as significant. An increasing percent-age of Federal information collected, created,and disseminated would appear to be wellsuited for desktop publishing.

High-End Electronic Publishing

The distinction between desktop publishingand so-called “high-end” electronic publishingis somewhat arbitrary, since microcomputer-based desktop systems can be connected ornetworked to high-end work stations, typeset-ters, and printers. Electronic publishing is con-sidered to be the electronic preparation of ma-terial at all pre-press stages of the publishingprocess, including text and graphics prepara-tion, page layout, and composition, with theactual printing in any of a variet y of formats—paper, microform, magnetic tape or diskette,optical disk, or direct electronic. In general,high-end electronic publishing is distinguishedby:

high volume (in number of pages andcopies),

● high quality (of the final product),● high complexity (of the page layout and

composition), and● high cost (compared to desktop systems).

High-end systems typically cost $30,000 to$150,000 depending on the configuration, com-pared to $5,000 to $10,000 for desktop sys-tems. For the software alone, high-end publish-ing systems typically cost $15,000 to $30,000compared to $500 to $1,000 for desktopsoftware.

The demand for high-end electronic publish-ing (and to a lesser extent desktop publishing)is driven by a powerful combination of advan-tages that translate into significant cost sav-ings and productivity improvements. For ex-ample, electronically published materials aregenerally found to be:

● more attractive,● easier to read,

more timely (publishing time can be any-where from 25 to 90 percent faster), and

● much less expensive.

Cost savings can be realized in several ways.For example, electronic publishing generallyreduces the total number of document pagesby 40 to 50 percent, but occasionally up to 80percent, since typeset pages contain more textthan typewritten pages. This can dramaticallyreduce paper costs for hard copy print runs.For documents with limited demand and lowvolume, electronic publishing makes printing-on-demand a realistic option. Electronic pub-lishing also facilitates the revision process byminimizing rekey boarding and graphics re-design.

Various market surveys project a strong de-mand for electronic publishing over the next5 years, based on a perceived need for electronicpublishing by major corporations and govern-ment agencies.

Electronic publishing systems have maderapid technical advances in just a few years.This trend is expected to continue due, in part,to heavy competition among graphics work-stations, publishing software, traditionalphotocomposition services, and computerequipment companies, as well as systems in-tegrators that combine hardware and softwarefrom numerous vendors. At the heart of elec-tronic publishing systems is the 32-bit work-station that permits complex manipulation oftext, graphics, and, increasingly, halftones.These are the same types of workstations usedfor computer-assisted design (CAD) and so-phisticated graphics applications. This work-station is now an established technology, witha substantial track record. According to Data-quest, 32-bit workstation sales ($15,000 to$50,000 per workstation price range) grew fromabout 100,000 units in 1983 to 1 million unitsin 1985, an estimated 2 million in 1987, anda projected 4 million in 1989.9

The technical power, sophistication, and flex-ibility of electronic publishing systems are il-lustrated by a typical system which uses 32-

“Cited in G, Lewis, “ Nrew Nlicros, ’ op. cit.

53

bit workstations (such as Sun, DEC, or Apollo),a 19-inch monochrome display with a high reso-lution screen, and a local area network. Thetypical system can accept input from CADworkstations, scanners, graphics (raster andvector, line art and halftones), spreadsheets,and text (in standard formats compatible withalmost any mainframe, mini, microcomputer,or word processor). The system provides out-put to various laser printers (such as Xerox,Kodak, Imagen, Apple, and Sun) and pho-totypesetters (such as Linotronic and Compu-graphic). Advanced software capabilities typi-cally include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

integration of text and graphics in non-structured pages;free-form drawing with a mouse;tracing tablet to copy drawings:editing of digitized line art;pixel-by-pixel editing of halftone photo-graphs; andsimultaneous editing of different portionsof the same document.

Overall trends in electronic publishing in-clude the following:

movement from a fragmented market toan integrated market;aggressive competition from electronicpublishing systems offered by traditionalphototypesetters and by electronic pub-lishing service bureaus;standardization of information exchangeamong different types of hardware andsoft ware;declining price/performance ratios; nar-rowing of the technical differences be-tween desktop and high-end publishingsystems;increasing integration of direct-to-plateprinting technologies; andincreasing speed and quality of perform-ance (including higher resolution, color,and multiple languages).

In the corporate community, investment inelectronic publishing is generally claimed tohave a rate of return of 50 to 60 percent anda payback period of 2 years or less. Also, com-panies typically claim to have cut overall pub-

54

lications turnaround time by 50 to 75 percent.While similar data are not yet available fromgovernment users, Interleaf Corp. indicatesthat the following Federal agencies are usingInterleaf electronic publishing systems: De-fense Advanced Research Projects Agency (fortechnical reports); Office of Naval Research (forresearch studies); intelligence agencies (vari-ous applications); U.S. Coast Guard (for tech-nical manuals); U.S. Army (for technicalmanuals); Department of State (for regula-tions); Department of Agriculture (for statis-tical documents); Bureau of the Census (for sta-tistical reports); and Federal Reserve Board(for financial analyses). Xyvision reports salesof electronic publishing systems to, amongothers: the National Center for Health Statis-tics, National Center for Disease Control, U.S.Geological Survey, Bureau of the Census, andCentral Intelligence Agency.

Electronic Forms Management

Another growing application of systems re-lated to electronic publishing is electronicforms management. Several companies special-ize in this applications area. The typical stand-alone workstation, including a processor andhard disk along with software and a high reso-lution display, costs in the range of $25,000to $60,000, depending on memory size. Thetypical system has many of the capabilities ofelectronic publishing systems discussed ear-lier, and can be used for designing newsletters,manuals, and technical documents as well asforms.

However, it is not necessary to have full-capability electronic publishing systems formany forms-management applications. For ex-ample, among Federal agencies, the Air Force,Army, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, SocialSecurity Administration, Federal ReserveBoard, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,and National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration are all using personal computers andlaser printers to manage forms. Microcom-puters are used to enter the data, and laserprinters are used to merge the data with stand-ard forms for printing. The agencies indicate

direct savings on the order of 40 percent overpreprinted forms.

For larger print runs, even greater savingsmay be possible where offset printing can beused to reduce the per-page printing cost ofabout two cents assumed for laser printers.Further savings seem likely since the formscan be stored and edited electronically, mini-mizing rekey boarding and redesign. Asanother example, the combination of micro-computers (or mainframe terminals) and laserprinters can be used to permit direct electronicinput of data collected by agencies into stand-ard reporting forms stored on the laser printer.The completed forms can be transmitted elec-tronically to a regional office or to Washing-ton, DC, eliminating both cost and potentialerrors associated with rekey boarding and thetime delays associated with mail delivery. Pa-per copies can be printed out for archivalpurposes.

Computer Graphics

Advances in computer graphics are centralto the recent breakthroughs in desktop andhigh-end electronic publishing. Indeed, com-puter graphics capabilities are key aspects ofmost electronic publishing systems. And pub-lishing applications have themselves becomeone of the driving forces for further advancesin and broader use of computer graphics. Otherdriving forces include:

graphics needs of the scientific com-munity;military applications of computer graphics,most recently stimulated by the Strate-gic Defense Initiative’s requirements forvery sophisticated, three-dimensional, dy-namic computer graphics and modeling;continued movement toward graphicsstandards; andcontinued breakthroughs in price/perform-ance ratios.

Major technical trends in computer graphicsinclude:

● the continuing transition from film-basedtechniques to digital processing;

—

55

development of relatively low-cost (under$15,000) desktop color scanners andprinters;further improvements in high resolutiongraphics (up to 2,000 x 2,000 pixels);further development of full color, interac-tive, three-dimensional graphics worksta-tions at relatively modest prices (e.g.,$30,000);continued migration of high-end worksta-tion capabilities to low-end workstations;and progress in developing standards forexchanging graphics data between work-stations, such as the Digital Data Ex-change Standard.

Further technical progress in computergraphics seems assured as various companiescontinually develop new products for top secretmilitary applications. Advanced digitized map-ping techniques are used by the Defense Map-ping Agency and by various Federal civilianagencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration, and Bureau of the Census. Computer-ized graphics products can interpret infraredaerial imagery and produce maps. In general,computerized mapping offers advantages sim-ilar

●

●

●

●

to computerized printing in that:

The original map preparation isfaster.Maps can be stored electronicallycilitate relatively easy updating.

much

to fa-

The original map and an-y revisions canbe displayed on a video screen.Hard-copy output can be obtained rela-tively quickly with a plotter or laserprinter.

Scanners and Printers

Almost all desktop and high-end electronicpublishing systems are configured to includeone or more printers, and may include one ormore scanners. The price/performance of scan-ners and printers has dropped dramatically inthe last few years. Scanners are used primar-ily to digitize text and images that are initiallyin paper formats. Scanners are not as efficientas direct electronic input, but are much more

cost-effective than rekey boarding or redraw-ing those materials not in electronic format.

The cost of scanners has dropped to the pointwhere low-end scanners are available in the$2,000-4,000 price range with a speed of up toseveral pages per minute and a scanning reso-lution of 200-300 dots per inch. While satis-factory for many desktop applications, higherspeed and resolution are generally needed forhigh-end publishing purposes. High-end scan-ners are available in the $15,000 to $40,000price range with speeds of 1 or 2 pages per sec-ond and resolution levels up to 400-dp~. Thus,the high-end scanners achieve speeds and reso-lutions similar to the high-end laser printersdiscussed later.

A major advantage of high-end scanners isthe capability to approximate graphics-qualityhalftone pictures. This is accomplished byscanning the image at up to about 120 scanlines per inch and recording multiple bits foreach pixel, rather than the one bit commonlyused for scanning text and line art. Insteadof recording black or white with one bit perpixel, multiple bits permit the recording of thedegree of blackness for each pixel, known asgray-scale scarming. Also, many high-end scan-ners can scan a wide range of type styles andsizes, and some scanners can be programmedto learn new (to the scanner) type styles. Thesecapabilities are expected to migrate to thedesktop scanners.

The technical status of printers is more com-plicated because printers are now used for func-tions other than printing, such as typesetting,graphics input, and forms management.

For printing of straight textual material,electromechanical line printers (known as im-pact printers) are efficient for low-copy runs(i.e., one or a few copies per original). Mediumperformance impact printers can print at about1,000 lines per minute (20 pages per minuteat 50 lines per page) and cost $10,000 to$15,000. High-end impact printers can reachoutput speeds of about 3,600 lines (72 pages)per minute. Low-end desktop line printers printat a few pages per minute.

56

The role of impact printers is expected to con-tinue to decline, because of the need for print-ing graphics and complex page layouts, the useof variable type styles and fonts, and the in-tegration of forms and data at the point ofprinting.

Non-impact printers (using laser, light emit-ting diode array, ion deposition, and other tech-nical processes) provide better quality, greaterflexibility and diversity, and faster speed (atthe high end). While on a per-page cost basis,non-impact printers may be more expensivethan impact printers, this is not an appropri-ate comparison in most cases. When servingas a typesetter or graphics printer or proofprinter, the non-impact printer can be an or-der of magnitude cheaper than conventionalmethods. For example, for low-volume appli-cations where 300 dpi output resolution issatisfactory, a desktop laser printer at $1,500to $3,000 may be perfectly adequate for pro-ducing camera-ready copy, compared to a pho-totypesetter at $35,000 to $70,000.

The high-end, non-impact printers are stillquite expensive, typically in the $100,000 to$200,000 range although these prices are ex-pected to come down. A typical high-end, non-impact laser printer prints at 90 to 120 pagesper minute. By comparison, a desktop laserprinter prints a few pages (e.g., 3 to 6) per min-ute and costs as low as $1,500. At the nextlevel up, a typical mid-range laser printer mightprint at 12 to 20 pages per minute and cost$10,000 to $15,000. Again, price/performanceratios continue to fall.

Non-impact printers are not well suited forjobs requiring high output quality and/or printvolume. With respect to quality, most non-impact printers can achieve an output resolu-tion of 300 dpi (assuming that the input reso-lution is at least at that level). This output qual-ity is adequate for a wide range of purposes,but not for high-quality publications. By com-parison, photocomposition equipment can pro-duce typeset output at resolutions of 1,200 ormore dpi. Technical advances are reducing thisquality differential. Indeed, 400 to 1,000 dpi

laser printers are now on the market. Highresolution non-impact printers are adequate tomeet many electronic publishing needs, eitherfor demand printing or as camera-ready copyto be used in subsequent plate-making andphoto-offset printing. Continued technical ad-vances and market forces are likely to pushthe typical output resolution of laser and othernon-impact printers into the 600 to 800 dpirange over the next few years, thus furtherclosing the quality differential.

With respect to print-volume requirements,it is still far cheaper to use conventional photo-offset printers for high-volume print runs thanlaser and other non-impact printers. One candebate the various break-even points as a func-tion of the length, format, number of copies,and desired turnaround time for specific doc-uments. In offset printing, plate-making (prep-aration of masters or negatives of the originalimages by which ink is transferred onto paperto make copies of the original) costs anywherefrom a few dollars to $50 and up per page. Thiscost indicates that non-impact printing is fre-quently less expensive for short print runs ofunder a few hundred copies per original. Forlarger print runs, the printing cost is likely tobe cheaper with photo offset rather than laserprinting.

It appears that the cost of non-impact print-ing (including xerographic) is rarely below 2cents per page. Thus, assuming $2 per pagefor plate-making (this is for desktop relativelylow volume applications), and assuming allother costs are equal (purchase or lease, main-tenance, supplies, and labor), the break-evenpoint would be about 100 copies. In thishypothetical and oversimplified case, printruns under 100 copies per original would usea non-impact printer and print runs over 100per original would use a photo offset printer.Other elements besides cost may enter into theprinting decision, such as quality, speed, turn-around time, and control. In the future, thebreak-even point between non-impact andphoto-offset printing will depend in part ontheir relative technical advances and cost re-ductions.

57— —

ONLINE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Online Information Retrieval

Previous discussions have focused on a num-ber of electronic information technologies–microcomputers, page composition and pub-lishing software, computer graphics, scanners,printers—with the information maintained inelectronic form through many or all stages ofthe publishing process. The primary final out-put has been in paper format. Advances in tech-nology make it possible to disseminate the out-put information in a variety of electronicformats as well as paper. For some purposesand some kinds of information, electronic for-mats may be preferable to paper. This is espe-cially so for bibliographic, reference, statisti-cal, and bulletin board information where theuser may not want to see the whole document,but is only interested in locating specific piecesof information. The private sector informationindustry has given high priority to computeriz-ing access to these types of information,whether the original source of the informationis the government, academic, research, or com-mercial sectors.

This section discusses the technology andapplication of online information retrieval sys-tems in the context of the private sector, sincethis is where much of the online activity is oc-curing. From a technical viewpoint, these pri-vate sector applications are directly relevantto the Federal Government.

The technology of online information re-trieval is well established. Customer access istypically via a microcomputer or terminal con-nected to a modem. Residential customers nor-mally tie into the local telephone companynetwork (e.g., Bell Operating Companies, in-dependent telephone companies) and, if access-ing a database from long distance, then con-nect to an interexchange carrier network (e.g.,AT&T, MCI, U.S. Sprint) or a value-added net-work (e.g., Tymnet, Telenet). Business custom-ers can sometimes bypass the local telephonecompany and connect directly to an interex-change or value-added network. At the other

end, access to the desired database is fre-quently via an online database services com-pany (e.g., Lockheed DIALOG, Pergamon In-foline) or a database gateway company (suchas is available from Western Union Easy Net).Gateway companies serve as intermediaries be-tween the customer and the database sourceand do not maintain the database itself. On-line database service companies actually main-tain copies of the databases online, so thatreferral to the database source is not neces-sary. Some database source companies do pro-vide for direct customer electronic access tothe database, without going through a gate-way or online services company. Companiesthat maintain online databases need:

a host computer and memory necessaryfor handling the volume of data and fre-quency of use, and

the necessary front-end processor andcommunications equipment for handlingremote inquiries and transmitting re-sponses.

The growth of the online information indus-try has been phenomenal. From less than $500million in annual revenues in 1978, the indus-try has grown to about $2 billion total reve-nues in 1986, $3 billion in 1987, and is projectedto reach about over $4 billion by 1990.

A typical commercial online database serv-ice charges about $40 to $80 per hour, of whichabout 40 to 45 percent is for acquiring and pre-paring the actual data, and another 40 to 45percent is for sales, marketing, and adminis-tration. About 6 to 9 percent is for communic-ations (including the cost of customer prem-ises equipment, e.g., computer terminal andmodem, local exchange access, and interex-change link if applicable), and about 6 percentis for data processing (including the cost ofhardware and software for database storageand data communicaticm).l’)

“)Studies by Cuadra Associates and Elsevier Science pub-lishing cited in P. W’. Huber, The (leodesic ,Vetwork: 1987 Re-port on Competition in the Telephone Industry, prepared forU.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 1987,p, 7.13.

58

One implication of the above cost structureis that substantial savings can result to theextent that the data are already in the appro-priate electronic format. If as a result of elec-tronic publishing government statistical orreference reports were produced in electronicform as a matter of course (even if the ultimateproduct is in paper format), then the electron-ically formatted information could, at leasttheoretically, also be made available as an on-line database. This could significantly reducethe cost of data acquisition and preparation.This is a major cost element, regardless ofwhether the government and/or commercialfirms disseminate the data. Sales, marketing,and administrative costs may not be as amena-ble to reduction for commercial firms, unlessthey are working under contract to the gov-ernment in such a way that the market was,in effect, guaranteed. For the government, dis-tribution to information intermediaries (e.g.,libraries in the depository program) might helpreduce marketing and other costs. Technologyis only a small part (perhaps less than 15 per-cent) of the cost of online databases.

Telecommunications

Online information retrieval services andseveral other kinds of electronic informationdissemination (e.g., electronic mail and facsi-mile) are dependent on telecommunicationtechnology and systems. A number of devel-opments are converging to facilitate and mostlikely reduce the relative cost of data commu-nication. One key trend is the transition fromanalog to digital telecommunication networksthat are designed to transfer information muchmore efficiently than the conventional analogtelephone networks. A second trend is the rapidmovement towards national and internationalstandards for data networks of all kinds. Athird trend is the maturation of Ku-band sat-ellite, fiber optic, and FM subcarrier technol-ogies for data transmission.

The implementation of FTS 2000, the up-graded Federal Telecommunication System, isintended to make state-of-the-art data commu-nication capability available to all major Fed-

eral agencies. As currently planned, FTS 2000will

●

●

●

●

●

include:

switched voice (up to 4.8 kilobits/secondtransmission capacity);switched digital integrated service;packet-switched services;video transmission (including graphics,facsimile, limited and full motion video);anddedicated voice or data transmissioncircuits.

The switched digital integrated service andpacket-switched service should be especiallyuseful for online database retrieval or electronicdocument transmission. The switched digitalintegrated service is designed to be the equiva-lent of the Integrated Services Digital Network(ISDN) for digitally integrating voice, data, im-ages, and video over the same transmissionmedium. As planned, the FI’S 2000 version willbe consistent with ISDN international stand-ards and will have a 1.544 megabit/secondtransmission capacity subdivided into 24 in-dividual channels of 64 kilobits/second each.For illustrative purposes, one 64 kilobit/sec-ond channel can transmit about four pages oftext per second (at 250 words per page x 8 char-acters per word x 8 bits per character). Theplanned IWS 2000 packet-switched service willbe consistent with international standards foropen systems interconnection and interoper-ability with public data networks and publicelectronic mail services. The FTS 2000 packet-switched service is planned as a 24 hours a day,7 days a week operation with 99.5 percent up-time and 98 percent availability.

The basic concept of packet-switchingis thatdata can be transmitted most efficiently whenassembled into packets (or bunches) of bits ofinformation. The U.S. packet-switching vol-ume for 1985 has been estimated by Interna-tional Resource Development at about 47 mil-lion kilopackets, of which 7 million kilopacketswere for database access, 3 million for elec-tronic mail, and 0.3 million for electronic datainterchange. 11 Typical commercial rates for

1lCited in P.W. Huber, Telephone Industry, op. cit., tablePA.1.

59

packet-switching have been estimated at about$0.50 per page of text for local packet-switching and roughly 3 times that for nationalpacket switching. ” While these rates com-pare favorably with electronic mail and maybe acceptable for very short documents, thecost of packet-switching long documents wouldbe quite high. Whether FTS 2000 will signifi-cantly reduce packet-switching costs in un-known at this time.

Data transmission networks of all kinds areexpected to incorporate both satellite and fi-ber optic technology wherever appropriate. Forexample, a high speed (56 kilobit/second)packet-switched data transmission networkcan incorporate both a fiber optic terrestrialcomponent and a Ku-band (12-14 gigahertz)satellite component. The Ku band permits useof lower-cost, very small aperture (VSAT) earthstations with receiving disks that are 1.2 or1.8 meters in diameter. Such a system couldbe used for such functions as transmitting datacollected from remote locations.

Over the next few years, a balanced networkof satellite and fiber optic transmission linksis likely to evolve. Fiber optic links are likelyto be used primarily for heavy volume, point-to-point transmissions, while satellite links areexpected to dominate for point-to-multipointtransmissions. Experimental tests of fiber op-tics have attained transmission rates of 4 bil-lion bits/second over relatively short distances.By comparison, this is more than a 1,000 timesthe 1.544 megabits/second transmission capac-ity specified in the ISDN standard, and isequivalent to transmitting an entire 30-volumeencyclopedia in 1 second.

The integration of fiber optics with satellite,microwave, and copper wire circuits will befacilitated by the continuing development ofteleports, with respect to traffic between ma-jor U.S. metropolitan areas and overseas traf-fic. Teleports are essentially buildings and fa-cilities that serve as a platform or bridge forinterconnecting different modes of telecommu-nication all at one location.

“I bid., table PA.2 and accompanying text.

The trend towards so-called intelligent build-ings will facilitate integration across differenttelecommunication technologies and services.Intelligent buildings are prewired during con-struction with local area networks (LANs) ca-pable of handling digital data communication.LANs can carry information much faster andmore efficiently than the conventional tele-phone and PBX (private branch exchange) ana-log circuit and switching systems. The cost ofLAN installation is much reduced if completedduring building construction rather than ret-rofitted. The trend toward intelligent buildingsis expected to accelerate in response to therapid increase in networking of microcomput-ers, mainframe terminals, peripheral equip-ment (including scanners, printers, andgraphics workstations), and the like in the of-fice environment.

A final telecommunication technology to bediscussed in this section is FM (frequencymodulated) radio subcarrier transmission. TheFM subcarrier is an excess portion of the band-width assigned to FM radio stations, and wasderegulated by the Federal CommunicationsCommission in 1983. The FM subcarrier ap-pears to be cost-effective for point-tOmulti-point transmission of time-sensitive digitaldata traffic, such as news and public affairsinformation. For example, MultiComm Tele-communications Corp. (Arlington, VA) is usingWestern Union’s Westar IV satellite to trans-mit information to 90 participating FM radiostations, where the information is in turnretransmitted on the FM subcarrier to receiv-ing sites equipped with a special, low-cost FMreceiver. The information can be stored on amicrocomputer or printed out. MultiComm sellsthe receiver/printer for $500 or leases the equip-ment for a nominal fee of $25/month. The costsof the service per receive site range from 20cents per page of information transmitted forimmediate delivery (e.g., within 19 seconds),10 cents per page for delivery within 2 hours,and 5 cents per page for overnight delivery.This is far cheaper than courier service, espe-cially for shorter documents. The 90 partici-pating FM stations broadcast to an estimated85 percent of the U.S. population. Ku-band

60

small satellite earth stations could be used toreach rural and remote areas. MultiCommoffers a Federal News Service that transmitstranscripts of White House briefings, congres-sional testimony, and the like to hundreds ofnewspapers and trade associations, and an In-fowire service for low-volume users who needtime-sensitive information on, for example,White House and agency press releases, ad-vance schedules of upcoming hearings, and thelike. Other private firms are using the FM sub-carrier to distribute such information as stockmarket quotes.

Electronic Mail

Another technical option for online informa-tion retrieval and two-way information trans-fer is electronic mail. As discussed previously,electronic mail capability is planned as partof the FTS 2000 system. Electronic mail hasgrown more slowly than initial expectations,but appears to breaching a critical thresholdof viability.

The outlook for electronic mail is being en-hanced by several key trends:

Electronic mail is increasingly included asa basic capability of office automation sys-tems, such as those offered by Data Gen-eral, DEC, IBM, Wang, and NBI;Vendors are providing much improved ca-pacity for interconnections or gatewaysbetween electronic mail systems (e.g.,Wang and IBM, DEC and MCI Mail, IBMand Western Union Easy Link, MCI Mailand CompuServe Easy Plex);Enhanced electronic mail capabilities arebeing developed that can handle graphicsand spreadsheets besides AmericanStandard Code for Information Inter-change (ASCII) text; andThere is growing acceptance of the CCITT(Consultative Committee on InternationalTelephone and Telegraph) X.400 standardfor electronic mail and messagehandling

service. X.400 is based on the 0S1 (OpenSystems Interconnection) model and willpermit interconnection among variouselectronic mail services.

Many electronic mail systems require a modem(modulator/demodulator) at each end of the cir-cuit, to convert the digital signals from thesending computer into analog signals for trans-mission over the telephone lines (at least in thelocal exchange) and back again from analogto digital at the receiving computer. However,modems are likely to be less of a constraintin the future for at least two reasons. First,the cost of modems continues to drop–a 300bits per second modem now costs $100 to $200,a 1,200 bps modem (the de facto standard forremote computer networking including elec-tronic mail and bulletin boards) $200, and thehigher speed 2,400 bps modem about $300 to$400. Second, in the future, all-digital datacommunication and telephone networks willeliminate the need for modems almost entirely.Modems will be necessary only to the extentanalog phone systems are still used.

The cost of electronic mail varies accordingto the length and the volume of the messagesand the type of electronic mail system used.For an inhouse personal computer or officeautomation-based electronic mail system, thecost range has been estimated at roughly $1to $2 per 3-page message (7,500 characters) ata monthly volume of 1,000 messages, and isestimated to drop to about $0.10 to $0.20 per3-page message at a monthly volume of 10,000messages. By comparison, electronic mail serv-ice bureaus typically charge in the range $1to 3 per 3-page message regardless of volume.

Other alternatives for transmission and re-ceipt of electronic mail include: electronic bulletin boards, digital facsimile services, andvideotext services. For discussion of these andother related telecommunication technologies,see Communication Systems for An ElectronicAge (OTA, forthcoming, 1989).

—

61— —

OPTICAL DISKS

For information that neither changes fre-quently nor requires immediate, online remoteaccess, optical disk technology is a viable tech-nical option for purposes of information stor-age and dissemination and as an importantcomponent of electronic publishing systems.(Other optical technologies not discussed here,such as optical or laser cards on strips, couldprovide storage and dissemination of smalleramounts of information. ) While some stand-ards issues still need to resolved, the signifi-cant technical advantages of optical disks arebecoming more and more evident as a resultof numerous development applications, proto-type tests, and, commercial offerings.

Optical disk technology uses a laser beamto record data on plastic disks by engravingpits in the surface. The disks can then be sub-sequently read by a low-power laser beam toretrieve the data. There are several differenttypes of optical disk, and some are furtheralong in terms of technology and standardsthan others. Standards are essential for opti-cal technology to ensure compatibility amongdifferent types of disks and disk readers, andto minimize the possible need for futurererecording of data due to incompatibleequipment.

The major advantage of optical disk tech-nology is the ability to store and disseminatelarge amounts of information at very low cost.For example, a 4.72 inch (12 centimeter) CD-ROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory) canstore up to roughly 540 megabytes (millionsof bytes) of data. Assuming that one typewrit-ten text page averages 250 words or about2,000 bytes per page, one CD-ROM can storeup to 270,000 pages of typewritten text. Grol-lier has recorded its entire 20-volume AcademicAmerican Encyclopedia on about one-fifth ofone disk. One floppy diskette (single-sided, sin-gle density) can store about 360 kilobytes ofdata, which is equivalent to about 180 pagesof double-spaced typewritten text. Thus, 1 CD-ROM can store the equivalent of about 1,500floppy diskettes, about 54 of the 10-megabyte

hard disks, or about 10 of the 1,600 bits-per-inch magnetic computer tapes. A 12-inch (30cm) WORM (Write Once Read Many times) op-tical disk can store up to 1 gigabyte (billionbytes), which is roughly double the capacityof a CD-ROM. All of these storage capacitiesare per single side, and would be doubled fortwo-sided disks.

The total and per bit or byte manufacturingcosts of both 4.72-inch CD-ROMs and 12-inchWORM optical disks are already quite low. CD-ROMS can be mastered for $4,000 to $5,000and can be reproduced in quantities rangingfrom $30 per disk for 100 copies to $6 per diskat volumes of several thousand. Some esti-mates suggest per disk costs as low as $3 forvolume runs. The 12-inch WORM disks aremore expensive to produce, at about $150 acopy, but are still far cheaper per byte thanfloppy diskettes or hard disks. These costs donot include the cost of data acquisition andpreparation, which apply to any storagemedium, and the cost of equipment needed toread the disks. All that is necessary to readCD-ROMs is a CD-ROM reader, available fromseveral vendors in the $500 to $1,000 pricerange, and a personal computer and screen.Thus, for users already owning a microcom-puter system, the incremental cost of CD-ROMequipment is in the same range as the mediumto high-end consumer-oriented compact digi-tal audio disk players. WORM readers are con-siderably more expensive—several to tens ofthousands of dollars range-although this canbe modest for the institutional (corporate andgovernment) users who are the likely clientsfor 12-inch WORM disks.

Optical disks also offer other advantages:rapid access to stored data (i.e., in onesecond),the ability to use a microcomputer for dataaccess and retrieval,high levels of data integrity,very minimal disk or equipment wear,convenience and portability, andrelatively long media life.

62

The latter point is somewhat controversial asinitial manufacturer estimates of 10 to 20 yearshave now been extended to 40 to 50 years.Some suggest that 100 years is possible un-der ideal conditions. Disks could be recopiedat periodic intervals if necessary.

The high level of commercial and govern-mental activity is indicative of the potentialfor CD-ROM and WORM disks. Vendors (suchas Lockheed DIALOG, Cambridge ScientificAbstracts, Aide Publishing, and VLS, Inc.) areoffering many new optical disk-based productsand services. Many of these include databasesthat originate in whole or in part from the Fed-eral Government.

Federal agencies are actively pursuing a widerange of development and prototype projects.For example:

●

●

●

●

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (incooperation with the Smithsonian Insti-tution) is developing a WORM optical disksystem to keep track of submissions re-garding nuclear waste disposal under theNuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Thesystem uses personal computers, scan-ners, and 12-inch WORM optical diskdrives.The Library of Congress is prototypingoptical disk technologies for general re-search, archival, and information retrievalpurposes, including the use of a 100-diskoptical jukebox for 12-inch WORM disks.The jukebox has a potential storage ca-pacity of 200 gigabytes.The National Library of Medicine is pro-totyping various optical disk technologiesfor medical applications, research, archival,and instructional purposes.The Bureau of the Census is prototypingthe use of CD-ROMs for storing and dis-tributing maps that will result from the1990 census. The Census Bureau is alsoexamining the potential of CD-ROM fora broad range of geographic and topo-graphic maps as part of the TopographicIntegrated Geographic Retrieval (TIGER)project being conducted jointly with theU.S. Geological Survey.

USGS is prototyping the use of CD-ROMsfor the possible goal of providing all (ora large part) of USGS earth science infor-mation in CD-ROM format such as seis-mic data from the National EarthquakeInformation Center. USGS officials be-lieve that CD-ROM offers the potential tomake earth science data much more acces-sible at lower cost.The U.S. Navy’s Printing and Publica-tions Service is implementing a print-on-demand system for 1.2 million pages ofmilitary specifications and standards, in-cluding text and graphics images. TheNavy is using a 12-inch WORM opticaldisk unit to record the disks, which arethen placed on two 32-disk juke boxes.More frequently requested documents areconcentrated on a few disks, and outputis printed with Xerox 9700 laser printers.The system is intended to:—reduce warehouse space and printing

costs,—improve response time,—eliminate dissemination of out-of-date

documents, and—serve as a prototype for many other

applications-for example, technical man-uals, training materials, and handbooks.

The Navy intends to develop interactiveapplications for document updating, alter-native storage media (such as CD-ROMand 5.25-inch WORM optical disks), anddocument search capability.Other Federal agencies actively pursuingoptical disk technology include the: In-ternal Revenue Service, Patent and Trademark Office, National Archives and Rec-ords Administration, National Aeronauticsand Space Administration, Central Intel-ligence Agency, and numerous compo-nents of the Department of Defense in-cluding the National Security Agency.

Another popular optical disk technology isthe analog videodisk. This is heavily used foreducational and training purposes, and canstore up to 54,000 images per disk. Videodisksare roughly similar to CD-ROMs in cost—about$2,000 to master, $18 per disk for the first 100

63——— —.

copies, and under $10 per disk for runs of sev-eral thousand. Videodisk readers cost in therange of a few hundred to a few thousanddollars.

Beyond the CD-ROM, WORM, and video-disk, there are several other optical disk tech-nologies under active development and appli-cation. The most noteworthy are: the CD-I(Compact Disk-Interactive) that combinestext/data, video, audio, and software storage,editing, and retrieval on one disk; and the eras-able 12-inch or 5.25-inch optical disk. CD-I isof particular interest because it will make pos-sible such compact disk applications as: talk-ing CD books, “smart” CD books (using ex-pert systems), CD book (or library) of themonth, and interactive audio, video, and data-base software. CD- I will be a disk with power-ful capabilities including:

graphics (e.g., digital video still frames,limited motion video, encoded colors, fullscreen animation);audio (e.g., digital audio, hi-fi, mid-fi,speech quality); andtext (e.g., bit-map text storage for display

EXPERTExpert systems, sometimes known as knowl-

edge-based or rulebased systems, are typicallycomputer soft ware packages that permit usersto have the benefit of expert knowledge inspecified subject areas. The ‘expert inexpertsystem means that both the knowledge andrules (decision paths and criteria) built into thesoftware come from relevant subject matterexperts. Expert systems have advanced to thepoint where widespread application to manyaspects of information dissemination islikely-ranging from technical writing to in-formation access and retrieval to the manage-ment of electronic publishing.

The expert systems applicable to informa-tion dissemination are no different in princi-ple from the systems that have been success-fully applied to various scientific, industrial,

only, character-encoded text for edit-ing/processing).

Optical disk technologies and applicationscontinue to advance at a rapid pace. Doublesided 12-inch WORM disks are now availablewith up to 4 gigabytes storage capacity perdisk. The initial commercial 5.25-inch erasa-ble disks already have been introduced, andCD-I disks now are in the prototype stage, withcommercial introduction expected in 1989 or1990. Some vendors have expanded the capac-ity of CD-ROM disks up to 750 megabytes,and others offer CD-ROM juke boxes that canaccess up to 240 disks. Personal computer com-pact disk readers are entering the market, asare specialized PC-CD/ROM applications (e.g.,using hypertext or hypergraphics software).A fledgling CD-ROM service bureau industryis developing, not far behind and perhaps even-tually to be integrated with the electronic pub-lishing service bureau industry.

A major critical path item for optical disktechnology is the development of standards.The current status and outlook are briefly dis-cussed in a later section, along with consider-ation of other standards issues.

SYSTEMS

and educational areas. For example, expert sys-tems have been used to:

●

●

●

help make agricultural management de-cisions regarding pest control as a func-tion of the type of crop, landscape, weatherconditions, season, other vegetation, in-festation history, and the like;help students explore and master a sub-ject or skill and even monitor the learn-ing progress of the students (known as“electronic or intelligent tutors”); andhelp technicians interpret technical datafrom computer-assisted manufacturingsystems.

Expert systems can be tied into both onlinebibliographic and full text information retrievaland to electronic publishing. For example, pro-

64

totype expert systems with sophisticatedsearch strategies are being used to retrieve anddeliver full text information via electronic pub-lishing systems. These kinds of informationretrieval expert systems could eventually workhand-in-hand with expert systems designed toefficiently manage electronic publishing. Onecan easily envision the day when expert sys-tems will help optimize the electronic publish-ing and dissemination (paper and electronic)of information products (or packages of prod-ucts), given the specific profile of the product(number of pages, composition, type style, useof graphics, etc.), anticipated user needs (e.g.,size of demand by format), and the mix of dis-semination channels (initial press run of pa-per copies, provisions for demand printing, on-line database access, optical disk distribution,etc.).

Numerous expert system applications for in-formation search and retrieval are under de-velopment. For example:

● The National Records and ArchivesAdministration (NARA) developed a pro-totype expert system to assist with rou-tine inquiries from researchers. The objec-tives of the project were to evaluate thecapability of an expert system to capturethe expertise of experienced archivists andto relieve them of the significant expend-iture of time needed to answer routine in-quiries. Test results indicated that if theprototype system were expanded to fullscale, the system could be expected toagree with its human counterpart morethan 90 percent of the time. NARA plansto extend testing of expert systems toother areas of records management.

The Defense Technical Information Cen-ter has established an Artificial Intelli-gence/Decision Support Laboratory thatis working to apply the full range of ex-pert systems and even more powerful arti-ficial intelligence technologies to informa-tion access and retrieval. The ultimateobjective is to facilitate the capture andtransfer of knowledge from the experts tothe users of DTIC (and other DoD) infor-mation systems, utilizing innovative in-formation display techniques and fullintegration with the DoD Gateway Infor-mation System that is interfaced withhundreds of online databases.The National Agricultural Library (NAL)has developed prototype expert systemsthat query users on their informationneeds and route them to the appropriatebibliographic sources. The prototype wasprovided to over 700 librarians in a floppydisk format that runs on a microcomputer.NAL hopes to create a critical mass of ex-pert system users, and believes that ex-pert systems could help free librariansfrom the more routine ready reference anddirectional questions. NAL is also explor-ing linking expert systems to other gov-ernment and commercial online databasesand CD-ROM players. Expert systemscould be used to query the user on his orher information needs, help sharpen therequest, and then route the request to anonline bibliography, a disk-based bibliog-raphy, or a full text document on video-disk or CD-ROM with electronic printingon demand. The possibilities are almostendless.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS

The pace of development and application ofseveral of the technologies discussed earlier isdependent on the development of and agree-ment on national and international standards.Standards-setting efforts are underway in allcritical areas, although the intensity of activ-ity varies. The major standards organizationsinclude:

●

●

the International Committee on Consul-tative Telephone and Telegraph (CCITT),which is a unit of the InternationalTelecommunications Union and whose for-mal members are 160 governments;the International Standards Organization(1S0), whose members are the nationalstandards bodies of 89 countries;

65

●

the American National Standards Insti-tute (ANSI) that represents the UnitedStates in the IS0 and coordinates volun-tary standards activities in the UnitedStates;the National Bureau of Standards (NBS),which is the lead U.S. government agencyin many standards areas; andthe Federal Communications Commissionwith respect to certain telecommunicationstandards.

A new organization, the Corporation for OpenSystems (COS), was established in 1986 to pro-mote open systems interconnection standards.COS members are primarily telecommunica-tion and information equipment and servicescompanies.

The following discussion highlights standards-setting for optical disks, page description lan-guages, and test markup languages. For dis-cussion of other standards areas (e.g. electronicdata interchange, integrated digital services),see Communication Systems for an Informa-tion Age (OTA, forthcoming, 1989).

With respect to optical disk standards, thetwo leading manufacturers of optical disks—Sony and Phillips-took the lead and developeda set of proposed standards for CD digital au-dio, CD-ROM, and CD-I, known as the RedBook, Yellow Book, and Green Book stand-ards, respectively. The proposed CD-ROMstandards (Yellow Book) included detailedtechnical specifications for CD encoding,mastering, replication, decoding, and reading,such that any CD-ROM disk can be read byany CD-ROM disk drive, and have become defacto industry standards. In addition, stand-ards for the logical formatting of CD-ROMswere initially proposed by the so-called HighSierra Group and subsequently adopted by1S0 as an international standard. Data prep-aration is the one area not fully specified bythe proposed standards. While data must belogically organized, formatted, and preparedprior to conversion into opticaI disk format,the standard permits use of a wide range ofcomputer operating systems. Although theother specifications insure that disks are phys-ically readable by any disk drive, the data maynot be accessible except through proprietary

software. However, this approach is consist-ent with the usual industry practice for diskdrive standards. Standards for WORM, Erase-able, and CD-I disks are in earlier stages ofdevelopment.

Another very important standards area in-volves the page description and the textmarkup languages used to code the format,style, and composition of documents. If thetext markup language used to prepare a docu-ment is not compatible with the language usedby the composition and/or output devices, thensignificant additional work is required to stripthe markup commands from the document andreinsert the commands in a compatible lan-guage. Sometimes it is easier just to rekey-board and recode the entire document, at sig-nificant additional cost. Alternatively, a pagedescription language can be used to make theconversion automatically, if there is pagedescription software compatible with the par-ticular text markup language and output de-vices in use.

One possible page description language isthe PostScript language (by Adobe Systems)that is becoming a defacto standard at leastfor desktop and WYSIWYG publishing sys-tems due to the fact that both Apple and IBM,among others, use PostScript. This possibil-ity is under consideration by NBS, ANSI, and1S0. A related effort involves the developmentof a Standard Page Description Language(SPDL). These approaches are intended tomatch the applications software (e. g., for edit-ing and composition) to the output devices andeliminate the need for the so-called devicedriver which is a separate set of instructionsneeded to make the applications software com-municate with the output device.

Text markup standards are particularly im-portant to realize the full benefits of electronicinformation dissemination. If government doc-uments (whether reports, pamphlets, manuals,other text, or text plus tabular and graphicsmaterial) are not prepared in a standardizedelectronic format using standardized codes anddescriptors, substantial recoding and rekey-boarding may be necessary at later stages ofthe dissemination process. Any significantrecoding and rekey boarding is costly and can

66

offset some or all of the cost advantages of elec-tronic formats.

Text markup standards are intended to es-tablish a consistent set of codes for labelingkey elements of a document–such as chaptertitles, paragraph indentations, tabular presen-tations, and the like. Such standards establisha logical structure for the elements of a docu-ment, in a hierarchical order—such as chap-ter, paragraph, line, word, and character. Theelements are assigned codes (which can be aletter, number, symbol, or combination thereof)that are keystroked along with the text, ta-bles, and graphics included in the document.If these electronic codes are widely agreed uponand used (i.e., standardized), then the docu-ments can be electronically transferred fromone stage in the dissemination process toanother with little or no additional effort.

A wide range of information disseminationfunctions would be facilitated by text markupstandards, including:

● authoring—creating the document—editing—revising

● archiving— short-term–long-term

● disseminating in multiple formats—conventional printing—electronic printing-on-demand—online electronic—offline electronic (e.g., magnetic tape,

floppy disk, CD-ROM)—microform—specialized outputs (e.g., braille, foreign

languages, voice)● disseminating through multiple channels

—agency clearinghouses and informationcenters

—governmentwide clearinghouses andsales programs

—press, libraries, and commercial vendors

For example, text markup standards wouldhelp ensure that NTIS and/or GPO are ableto efficiently reproduce and disseminateagency electronic documents. This would also

facilitate private vendor repackaging or en-hancing of agency documents, if the vendorsutilized the same standards.

Three major approaches to text markupstandards are: 1) GPO’s logically structuredfull text database standard; 2) the StandardGeneralized Markup Language (SGML) thathas been adopted by the Department of De-fense; 3) and the Office Document Architec-ture standard.

The GPO standard is used almost exclu-sively by GPO, congressional committees andoffices, and Federal agencies—primarily thoseagencies that submit magnetic tapes to GPOfor typesetting and printing. Full text data-base standard or specification is the applica-tion of a logical coding structure to the full textor content of the document, including tablesas well as text. GPO staff recently completedtraining on how to write software programsthat can translate from SGML to GPO’s fulltext database standard. GPO indicates thatit is prepared to write such software at cus-tomer request. The GPO standard is designedprimarily to meet the needs of publishingprofessions. SGML, on the other hand, whilealso meeting publishing needs, is recognizedas an international standard, endorsed by DoDand some vendors, and is being issued by NBSas a Federal Information Processing Standard(FIPS). SGML is a set of rules for developingthe element codes for a document, whereas theGPO standard includes both the rules and thespecific codes themselves. Both SGML andGPO use a logical structure, so in principleSGML codes should be convertible to GPO’scodes, and perhaps vice versa, although someof these applications are still under devel-opment.

Office Document Architecture (ODA), a re-lated protocol, is directed primarily to meet-ing office, not publishing, needs, and thus thedocument complexity is reduced (due to fewerfonts, formats, etc.). ODA is a method of en-coding software that essentially converts doc-uments to a common code compatible with awide range of office automation systems. ODAis a protocol for converting the codes used to

67

format individual documents into a commonformat for the interchange of the documentsamong different systems. ODA was initiallydefined by the European Computer Manufac-turers Association (ECMA) to be consistentwith the Open Systems Interconnection stand-ard developed by the 1S0 and has been issuedas an international standard. Officials at NBSbelieve that there may be a need for both ODAand SGML standards within the Federal Gov-ernment.

Finally, there is intensive work by all majorstandards organizations to refine and imple-ment the open systems interconnection (0S1)concept. An 0S1 reference model has been de-veloped under 1S0 auspices. The model serv-ices as a master standard for an integratedtelecommunications-information systems envi-ronment. It also incorporates already estab-lished standards such as those for packet-switched data networks and electronic mail.Many vendors and users have recognized the

need for rapid 0S1 implementation. In theUnited States, NBS is coordinating an 0S1prototype system known as OSINET that isintended to be a test of the 0S1 referencemodel. The results are being made availableto the standards-setting organizations.

The Federal Government commitment to 0S1is already significant, with a growing con-sensus that 0S1 is necessary to move to in-teroperability of the now confusing and largelyincompatible range of equipment and softwarein the government inventory. Indeed a Fed-eral interagency committee has recommendedthat 0S1 standards be mandatory for new Fed-eral computer and telecommunication procure-ments and be a first option for retrofits ofexisting systems. The suggested 0S1 procure-ment standard would be consistent with the1S0 reference model. This 0S1 procurementstandard is being issued by NBS as a FederalInformation Processing Standard (FIPS).

Chapter 4

Alternative Futures for theGovernment Printing Office

Clockwise from top left: a hot type scene at GPO, circa 1940s; GPO operator using electronic photocomposition equipment;GPO operators using keyboard input terminals; and the Congressional/ Record coming off the press (photo credit:

U.S. Government Printing Office).

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Traditional GPO-Centralized . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Demand for Traditional GPO Services . . . 74Impacts of Medium-Term Reductions in

Traditional Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Traditional GPO–Legislative Branch

Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Financial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Labor Force Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Other Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Electronic GPO–Decentralized. . . . . . . . . . . 85Trends in Technology and Demand . . . . . . 86Opportunities and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . 89

TablesTable Page

4-1,

4-2.

4-3.

4-4.

4“5.4-6.

4-7.

4-8.

4-9.

4-1o.

4-11.

4-12.

4-13 (

4-14.

4-15.

4-16.

GPO Revenues for Printing Services -

and Publications Sales, Fiscal Years1978-87 ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74GPO Billings and Labor ForceBreakdown, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . 75GPO Workload Distribution, FiscalYear 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Electronic Potential for Main PlantProducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Cost of GPO Work, 20 Sample Jobs . . 77GPO Cost Structure, FiscalYear 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78GPO Main Plant Cost Structure,Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . 78Major Changes in GPO Labor Force,Fiscal Years 1975-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Selected Major Equipment,Acquisitions, GPO Press and Bindery,Since 1977, as of September 1987 . . . . 80Hypothetical Calculation of FinancialImpact of Legislative Branch GPO . . . 82Hypothetical Main Plant Total LaborForce Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Hypothetical Main Plant DivisionalLabor Force Reduction ... , ., . . . . . . . 83GPO Main Plant Composers, Years ofService and Retirement Eligibility,Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Changes in GPO Main Plant Volumefor Eight Principal Products,1975-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Congressional Printing and BindingBillings Selected Items, Fiscal Years1975, 1983, and 1984 ........, . . . . . . 85Congressional Printing and BindingBillings, Selected Items, Fiscal Years1975 and 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table Page4-17, Origination Formats for Material

Submitted to GPO, as Percent of .

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864-18. Origination Formats, Including

Camera-Ready, as Percent of Totaland by Branch of Government. . . . . . . 86

4-19. Civilian Department Agency Use of

4-20,

4-21,

4-22,

4-23,

4-24.

4-25.

4-26.

4-27,

4-28.

4-29.

4-30.

4-310

4-32.

4-33.

4-34,

4-35.

Selected Electronic Technologies . . . . . 87Estimated Use of ElectronicPublishing Software, CalendarYear 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Estimated Use of Other ElectronicPublishing Technologies, CalendarYear 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Depository Library Demand forFederal Information, by Type andFormat , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Scientific and Technical AssociationDemand for Federal Information, byType and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Agency Activities and Plans forElectronic Information Dissemination,by Type and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90GPO Pages Produced from Databasesand Direct Drive Magnetic Tapes,Fiscal Years 1983-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91GPO Dial-Up Electronic TransmissionCustomers, January 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . 92Departmental Applications of GPOStructured Full Text DatabaseStandard, as of November 1987 . . . . . . 93Ten Largest GPO Printing Customers,Fiscal Year 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Distribution of GPO DefenseCustomers by Procurement andPrinting Offices, Fiscal Year 1986 . . . . 94Federal Agency Electronic PublishingActivities and Plans, as of 1986 inPercent of Agencies Responding . . . . . 96Depository Library Demand forFederal Information ElectronicFormats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Scientific, Technical, and GeneralAssociation Demand for FederalInformation Electronic Formats. . . . . . 99Library and Association Access toInformation Dissemination Technology 99GPO Union Bargaining Units, as ofApril 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......101Selected GPO Electronic CompositionEquipment, Fiscal Year 1987 ., .. ....103

AlternativeGovernment

Chapter 4

Futures for thePrinting Office

SUMMARY

This chapter along with chapter 5 examinesin detail selected alternatives for the future ofthe U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)and National Technical Information Service(NTIS). Chapter 4 focuses on GPO, and chap-ter 5 on NTIS and NTIS/Superintendent ofDocuments (SupDocs) cooperation. The intentis to gain a full understanding of the strategicoutlook for both GPO and NTIS as an inputto congressional decisions on their future direc-tion. This strategic outlook should be relevantto congressional consideration of any alterna-tives for GPO and NTIS, not just the ones ex-plicitly discussed here, and should be read inthe context of the trends discussed in chap-ters ‘2 and 3 of this report. The results of thisstrategic analysis are highlighted below. Pol-icy implications are discussed in chapters 11and 12.

First, General Accounting Office (GAO) sur-veys of Federal agencies (chapter 2) and Fed-eral information users (this chapter), coupledwith a review of agency automation plans andactivities, suggest the following overall pro-jections:

c 1 to 3 years-steady state in demand forpaper formats; rapid growth in electronicformats, but still a very small percentageof total demand;

3 to 5 years-demand for paper formatsmay start to decline; demand for electronicformats likely to reach critical thresholdsfor several types of Federal information;

● 5 to 10 years-demand for paper formatslikely to decline markedly in some cate-gories, but would still be significant fortraditional government books, reports,and publications; electronic formats likelyto dominate for many types of infor-mation.

On one hand, near-term (l-3 years) future de-mand for traditional GPO services is likely tobe stable, absent a severe governmentwide fis-cal crisis and assuming executive agencies con-tinue to be required to obtain printing fromor through GPO. GPO’s greatest assets areits traditional ink-on-paper printing facilitiesand experienced labor force, coupled with asubstantially automated prepress capability,including electronic input, photocomposition,and typesetting. GPO has invested heavilyover the past decade in upgraded prepress,press, and bindery facilities. Despite the pos-sibly misleading external appearance, the GPOmain plant compares favorably with even thelargest and best equipped commercial print-ing plants.

On the other hand, GPO is particularly vul-nerable in the medium-term (3-5 years) tochanges in demand for paper formats thatmight reduce executive agency need for GPOprocured printing (which accounts for aboutthree-quarters of GPO’s total printing work)and for GPO main plant inplant printing(where the bulk of GPO overhead and laborcosts are located). The future of GPO printingdepends in large measure on the plans andactivities of Department of Defense (DoD)agencies, that collectively account for roughlyone-third of all GPO billings. The defense agen-cies are determined to reduce drastically theirdependence on paper formats within the nextfew years. If traditional ink-on-paper defensework was phased out, almost all of the GPOregional and satellite procurement officeswould lose at least half and some over 90 per-cent of their work, and two of the GPO regionalprinting plants would lose perhaps one-thirdto one-half of their work. Realistically, the de-fense conversion from paper to electronic for-

71

72

mats could take longer than planned, but war-rants careful monitoring due to the highlyleveraged effects on the GPO regional workload. The GPO main plant is not dependenton military work, but is vulnerable due to thecombination of potential electronic competi-tion for some major product lines (such as theCongressional Record and Federal Register)and a high overhead cost structure necessi-tated largely by GPO’s current diversifiedresponsibilities.

In the hypothetical case that GPO were tobe limited to legislative branch printing (plussome key governmental process work such asthe Federal Register, passports, and postalcards), the main plant printing operationswould switch from a net surplus of several mil-lion dollars to a net loss of several tens of mil-lions of dollars, assuming no changes in de-mand and overhead, cost, and labor forcestructure (other than those associated withtransferring the GPO printing procurementprogram to an executive agency such as theGeneral Services Administration (GSA)). Re-storing GPO to breakeven operations underthis scenario could necessitate up to a 40 per-cent reduction in the main plant labor forceand/or a significant increase in rates.

GPO is faced with several challenges and op-portunities concerning electronic publishingand dissemination of electronic formats. Fed-eral executive agencies are rapidly increasingtheir automation activities, and have alreadyinvested, collectively, an estimated $400 mil-lion in electronic publishing systems. GAO sur-veys found dramatic increases in the percent-ages of both agencies and information usersthat anticipate use of electronic formats (espe-cially online data bases, electronic mail or bulbtin boards, floppy disks, and compact opticaldisks) over the next 3 years.

For the executive branch, several roles forGPO are emerging beyond the continued pro-vision of traditional printing services. GPOcould:

● continue to improve cost-effectiveness atthe input and prepress end of the print-

●

●

●

●

ing process by encouraging electronic sub-missions, already at high levels, and dial-up composition services where appro-priate;encourage adoption of governmentwidestructured database standards for elec-tronic (as well as conventional) printing;facilitate mechanisms for training andeducation about electronic publishing;establish an electronic publishing labora-tory and innovation center, open to agencypersonnel; and/orincrease SupDocs dissemination of elec-tronic formats.

Up to now, GPO has participated in only ahandful of agency automation programs. Froma strategic perspective, GPO would benefit fromstaying abreast of agency applications and,thereby, be in a much better position to identifyopportunities to meet agency needs. In a decen-tralized and competitive electronic informationenvironment that increasingly characterizes theFederal Government, GPO will have to be inno-vative in matching its expertise to agency needsthat are likely to vary widely and change at anincreasingly rapid pace.

For the legislative branch, GPO already hasa central role in many traditional publishingactivities and several electronic publishing pi-lot projects. GPO could develop plans for anexpanded role for congressional committeesand offices, including electronic search, re-trieval, and printing-on-demand of congres-sional documents. Any detailed planningwould need to take into account the relatedroles of the Library of Congress and Congres-sional Research Service, House InformationSystems Office, and Senate Computer Center.

With respect to GPO SupDocs sales of elec-tronic formats, SupDocs would be operatingin a more competitive environment than hastraditionally been the case with respect to pa-per formats. For many types of Federal infor-mation, individual agencies and/or privatevendors might decide to market electronic for-mats. SupDocs would need to decide whichelectronic items would be cost-effective andcompetitive if included in the sales program.

Three policy issues would need resolution.●

●

●

First is that significant SupDocs sales ofmagnetic tapes and floppy disks (and, po-tentially, CD-ROMs and electronic print-ing-on-demand) could overlap and dupli-cate the NTIS sales program, absent aconsolidation of or close cooperation be-tween NTIS and SupDocs.Second is that SupDocs sales of onlinedatabases could overlap and duplicateofferings by individual agencies, agencyonline gateways (such as the National Li-brary of Medicine), and/or private (or non-profit) online gateways or database pro-viders that include Federal agency data-bases, absent agency agreements. Whilemultiple government sales outlets for thesame tapes and disks may be cost-effec-tive, given the small breakeven volumes,multiple government outlets for sales ofonline services may be hard to justify,considering the more substantial develop-ment, staff, and capital investment re-quirements.Third, sales of electronic formats could in-volve heavier demands for user supportand generate the need for far more sophis-ticated and extensive customer service—from GPO, agencies, and/or vendors—than is expected for paper (or microfiche)formats.

GPO faces two major challenges with respectto staffing: retaining the necessary skilled laborforce to maintain traditional printing servicesat a level commensurate with demand, and ob-taining personnel with the new skills needed toimplement GPO’s future role in electronic pub-lishing and electronic information dissemination,

73.

however that role may be defined. With respectto capital investment, it would seem prudentfor GPO to carefully reevaluate its capital in-vestment plans in light of possible adjustmentsto traditional printing services and possiblenew electronic initiatives. Staffing and capi-tal investment decisions are best made withinan overall strategic framework for the futureof GPO.

The discussion in this chapter focuses ontechnical, financial, organizational, labor, anddemand questions and not on the broad pol-icy issues addressed in chapters 11 and 12. Thealternatives presented here assume that Con-gress would take whatever policy actions werenecessary to implement the particular alter-native. In other words, this chapter is intendedto probe more deeply into several of the possi-ble alternatives for GPO. Also, although thealternatives are framed in terms of GPO, thediscussion applies equally regardless of thename, for example, Government InformationOffice or Government Publications Office.

The alternatives explored in this chapter are:

. Traditional GPO—centralized Traditional GPO—legislative branch only● Electronic GPO—decentralized

Each of these alternatives is defined and dis-cussed below. The order of discussion does notimply an order of preference or priority, butwas chosen to facilitate the presentation. Keyfacts and analyses are incorporated at the firstappropriate place and then referenced in sub-sequent discussion rather than repeated. Dis-cussion relevant to SupDocs is also found inchapter 5, which focuses on an electronic NTISand NTIS/SupDocs cooperation.

TRADITIONAL GPO–CENTRALIZED

Under this alternative, GPO would continue pository Library Program (DLP). GPO wouldto provide centralized conventional printing do very little electronic dissernination, as is theservices (that is, Federal Government ink-on- situation today. The mission agencies wouldpaper printing would be obtained from or handle electronic dissemination themselves, in-through GPO), disseminate paper formats on eluding direct distribution to the depositorya sales basis through SupDocs, and dissemi- libraries to the extent needed. Note that print-nate paper and microfiche formats to the De- ing services are defined to include composition,

74

printing, binding, blank paper sales, and re-lated activities.

Demand for Traditional GPO Services

A logical starting point for the analysis isto examine demand for traditional GPO serv-ices. The two major components of demand areprinting services, and publication sales. In fis-cal year 1987, these accounted for 88.7 percentand 8.4 percent of total revenue, respectively.The 10-year trend data for these two items areshown in Table 4-1. Clearly, other than the tem-porary decline in printing services during fis-cal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982 (almost halfof which was due to reductions in congressionalwork), the overall trends show a gradual in-crease in printing services and a rather steadyincrease in sales of publications. Even account-ing for inflation, there is no historical evidenceof weakness in the demand for traditional GPOservices.

Looking to the future, most independent projections suggest that overall general demandfor paper formats will continue for at least 5years at a slow growth or, at worst, steadystate level—even in the face of rapid growthin electronic formats. This projection shouldapply to the Federal Government as well, shortof a severe fiscal crisis. There is no evidencethat agency budgetary restraints in the pastfew years have translated into a significant re-duction in actual printing services obtainedfrom GPO.

Table 4“1 .—GPO Revenues for Printing Services andPublications Sales, Fiscal Years 1978-87

(in millions of dollars)

Sales ofFiscal year Printina services Duplications

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . $499 $44.41979 . . . . . . . . . . . 606 44.41980 . . . . . . . . . . . 672 47.61981 . . . . . . . . . . . 644 51.31982 . . . . . . . . . . . 608 55.01983 . . . . . . . . . . . 637 57.11984 . . . . . . . . . . . 739 59.41985 . . . . . . . . . . . 771 59.31986 ... , . . . . . . . 737 62.91987 . . . . . . . . . . . 773 73.5SOURCE: U S Government Printing Office, 1988

However, in the longer term, significant re-ductions in paper formats could occur. OTA’Sindependent printing consultant reviewedGPO’s current product line and, using severaldifferent methodologies, concluded that about60 percent of GPO’s current products couldpotentially be suited for electronic formats, al-though realistically perhaps only one-half ofthis amount (or 30 percent) would be suitedfor electronic dissemination and even thiswould not automatically mean that paper dis-semination would be eliminated.1 Any actualswitch from paper to electronic formats wouldmost likely take place gradually, since elec-tronic dissemination requires that the recipi-ent (user) as well as the sender have the neces-sary equipment and knowhow. On the otherhand, results of the GAO survey of Federalinformation users, highlighted later in thischapter, indicate that many users desire to in-crease dramatically their use of electronic for-mats within the next 3 years. These findings,coupled with the ambitious automation plansand activities of many Federal agencies, sug-gest the following projections:

●

●

●

1 to 3 years-steady state in demand forpaper formats; rapid growth in electronicformats, but still a very small percentageof total demand;3 to 5 years-demand for paper formatsmay start to decline; demand for electronicformats are likely to reach critical thresh-olds for several types of Federal infor-mation;5 to 10 years-demand for Paper formatsare likeiy to decline markedly {n some cat-egories but would still be significant fortraditional government books, reports,and publications; electronic formats arelikely to dominate for many types of in-formation.

However, even though there is not likely tobe a precipitous near-term decline in overalldemand for paper formats, GPO is particularlyvulnerable to changes in demand for products

‘Frank Romano,, “Decision Analysis Framework for GPOStrategic Alternahves,” contractor report prepared for OTA,January 1988.

75-.

that are printed at the main GPO plant inWashington, DC. This is because the bulk ofGPO overhead and labor are located at themain plant, and also because about three-quarters of GPO’s total printing work is con-tracted out (known as procured printing).These figures are highlighted in Table 4-2 forfiscal year 1987.

In addition to the 3,500 personnel allocatedin Table 4-2 to procured, main plant, and re-gional printing, there are 692 administrativeand support personnel located primarily at themain plant and 930 personnel assigned to theSupDocs office. The SupDocs personnel aresupported through sales revenues, appropria-tions (for DLP and by law dissemination), andagency reimbursements (for reimbursable dis-semination), and are not counted as part ofGPO overhead. However, the administrativeand support personnel, plus main plant main-tenance, utilities, and the like, are included ingeneral overhead, which is allocated across allmajor GPO activity centers.

Any reduction in the GPO work load wouldresult, at least in the short run, in spreadingthe general overhead over a smaller base and,thereby, increasing unit costs. Moreover, re-ductions in the main plant work load wouldhave a magnified impact since the high costsof main plant operations would be allocatedover a smaller base of main plant work thusdriving up the unit costs even further, all otherthings being equal.

Main plant operations are particularly vul-nerable to changes in the legislative branchwork load, which is concentrated at that plant.

Table 4-2.—GPO Billings and Labor Force Breakdown,Fiscal Year 1987

Main RegionalProcured plant plantprinting printing printing

Billings ($ millions) . . . . . . . $576 $180 $14(Percent of total). . . . . . . . . . 74.8°\0 23.40/o 1.80/0

Labor force assigned(persons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 2,619 a 244

(Percent of total). . 18.2°/0 74.80/o 7,0 ”/0aExcludes 692 admtnlstratwe and support personnel and 930 SupDocs personnel

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice 1988

As shown in Table 4-3, about 80 percent of alllegislative branch work is done inplant, whileabout 85 percent of all executive branch workis contracted out. Of the 20 percent (or $23 mill-ion worth) of legislative branch printing thatis procured, only about $1 million is for Con-gress itself, with the remainder for legislativebranch agencies and extra copies of agency doc-uments for SupDocs and DLP. Also, about 45percent of inplant work is legislative, whileabout 95 percent of contracted work is for theexecutive branch. Judicial branch work is splitabout 50-50 between inplant and procuredprinting, but represents only a fractional per-centage of total GPO work compared to about15 percent for the legislative branch and 85percent for the executive branch. Also, over90 percent of inplant work is done at the mainplant, with the remainder at GPO regionalplants. Complete fiscal year 1987 workloaddata are presented in Table 4-3. Again, notethat the term “printing’ is defined to includecomposition, layout, printing, binding, blankpaper sales, and other associated services inaddition to printing.

An analysis of fiscal year 1987 billing datafor the GPO main plant indicates that a sig-nificant portion could be suitable for electronicdissemination or could be vulnerable to com-petition from electronic formats. The majoritems are listed in Table 4-4 with fiscal year1987 billing amounts indicated. Other signifi-cant main plant billing items which are judgedas not suitable for electronic formats includesuch things as envelopes, books, letter headstationery, note pads, passports, and postalcards. Some main plant billings are for person-nel services only (e.g., Congressional Record

Table 4-3.—GPO Workload Distribution,Fiscal Year 1987 (in millions of dollars)

Main RegionalProcured plant plantmintina Drintino ~rintino Totals

Legislative branch . . 23 90 – 113Judicial branch . . . . . 1 l — 2Executive branch . . . 552 90 14 656

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . $576 $181 $14 $771SOURCE. U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988

76

Table 4=4.—Electronic Potenfial for Main Plant Products

Fiscal year 1987billings

Major product (in $ millions) Electronic potential

U.S. Code . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forms . . . . .

Pamphlets . . . . . . .

Bills, resolutions,amendments . . . . . . .

Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . .

Codeof Federalregulations . .

Committee prints . . . .Committee reports . . .

Congressional Record-Daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Register ..., .

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

5.8

11.5

11.0

2,0

8,6

3.54,2

13,0

17.7

17.6

96.3

Online and CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper format.

Electronic filing and electronic printing-on-demand could reduce demand forpaper formats in medium to long-term.

Online, CD-ROM, diskette, and electronic mail/bulletin board distributionalong with electronic printing-on-demand could reduce demand for paperformats in medium-term.

Online authoring, editing, publishing, and status systems along with onlineand CD-ROM distribution could significantly reduce demand for paperformats.

Online systems could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online, CD-ROM, and diskette distribution along with electronic printing-on-demand could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could sharply reduce demand for paperformats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could sharply reduce demand for paperformats.

CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper formats,

SOURCE Bllltngs from GPO: Electronic Potential from OTA, 1988

indexers at $0.75M, details to congressionalcommittees at $6 M).

Overall, just over half of the main plant workcould be affected by electronic formats. Thevulnerable congressional work is particularlysignificant and amounts to about 45 percentof main plant billings if the Federal Registerand Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are in-cluded. In principle, reductions in inplant workcould be offset by shifting some procured workto in-plant printing. However, the congres-sional work is quite unique and specialized,with little work of a similar nature currentlybeing procured, unlike forms and pamphletswhere work could be rather easily shifted fromprocured to in-plant printing. Also, once ini-tial press runs reached small enough levels, cer-tainly in the few hundreds of copies and possi-bly in the few thousands, fully electroniccomposition and printing would likely be cost-effective. In other words, primary dissemina-tion could shift from paper (or paper and mi-crofiche) to electronic with a small initial press

run (e.g., a few thousand copies) of paper co-pies and possibly some microfiche copies (ona transitional basis). Any subsequent dissem-ination of paper copies could be on a printing-on-demand basis for complete copies or, prob-ably more common, printing of selected pages.

Impacts of Medium-Term Reductionsin Traditional Demand

Realistically, any significant transition frompaper to electronic formats would take placeover several years, so GPO would have timeto adjust. Basically, GPO could make up forany shortfall by transferring a portion of pro-cured printing (primarily executive branchwork) to the main plant or reducing main plantoperating costs or some combination of thetwo. The major drawback of transferring morework in-house is that the main plant work costssignificantly more than procured work. Thus,either the executive agency customers wouldpay considerably more than they do now, or

77—————. .

GPO would have to charge considerably lessthan full cost to offer a competitive price.

GPO Cost and Labor Force Structure

The cost of GPO work for 20 sample print-ing jobs is shown in Table 4-5 in cost per 100pages and total cost, averaged over all 20 jobs.For these 20 sample jobs, the average mainplant regular rate cost was more than doublethe procured cost. While these 20 jobs do notconstitute a statistically valid sample of allGPO work, the sample jobs were selected byGPO as being reasonably representative. (Seech. 11 for further details. )

In recent years, GPO has been offering a spe-cial rate for some executive branch printingjobs done at the main plant. The rate is basedon the tenth lowest bid for comparable pro-cured work plus ten percent. For the 20 sam-ple jobs, the average main plant cost using thespecial rate was about 45 percent higher thanthe procured cost. The special rate is intendedto recover variable costs and make some con-tribution to general overhead. This would ap-pear to be the case, since the special rate forthe 20 sample jobs averaged about 68 percentof the regular rate that presumably covers fullcosts. According to GPO, the average directlabor rate is about 30 percent of full costs. Sothe special rate does appear to more than coverdirect labor. If one assumes direct labor to bea fixed cost, at least in the short-term, the spe-cial rate appears to easily cover the cost of ex-pendable (e.g., paper, ink) PIUS make a Con-

tribution to overhead. Of course, on the otherhand, the greater the use of the special rate,the greater the overhead rate will be for thebalance of the work, all other things beingequal.

Table 4-5.—Cost of GPO Work, 20 Sample Jobs

Main plant Main plant Main plantprocured a regular rateb special ratec

T o t a l c o s t , . $ 1 o o , o 1 7 $213,281 $144,881.-aProcured esttmates based on general usage contracts us I ng the average pr!ce

of the f!rst 5 lowest b!ddersbMaln plant regular rate estimates based on the GpO Price scale as of Dec 1

1987cMaln plant special rate estimates based on the 10th lowest b!d plus 10°.

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice 1988

There are several reasons for the higher mainplant costs. First and foremost, GPO is aunique printing facility in terms of productmix, schedule requirements, and customerbase. GPO produces a much more diversifiedset of printing products than any single pri-vate sector printing facility. As a consequence,GPO operates and maintains a much widerrange of equipment than do private printingcompanies. Most private firms specialize in asmall number of products, to keep overheaddown and maximize economies of scale. Sec-ond, to provide quick turnaround of congres-sional work and overnight printing of the dailyCongressional Record and Federal Register,GPO operates on a three shift basis. This re-sults in significantly higher costs for staffing,supervision, maintenance, and general over-head. The overnight operations are so impor-tant that, in 1987, GPO designated an Assis-tant Public Printer to provide overall on-sitemanagement of the night operations. Third,as a government agency, GPO provides suchservices as employee and congressional rela-tions, public affairs, inspector general, equalemployment, labor relations, safety and health,and the like, many of which contribute tohigher general overhead than in private com-panies.

Overall, GPO is a labor intensive organiza-tion. After deducting the cost of procuredprinting and sales of publications and the sur-plus (net profit), about two-thirds of the re-maining costs are for labor, about one-fifth forsupplies and materials, and one-tenth for util-ities and the like. The GPO cost structure,based on fiscal year 1987 data, is shown in Ta-ble 4-6. Data for main plant costs shown in Ta-ble 4-7 confirm the general cost structure notedabove.

With respect to the total GPO labor force,a significant downsizing has already takenplace. Over the past 12 years, total GPO em-ployment has declined by about 3,500 personsor 40 percent (from 8,632 in fiscal year 1975to 5,122 in fiscal year 1987). As shown in Ta-ble 4-8, the reductions have been spread acrossseveral GPO activities, but with the highestabsolute and percentage reductions occurring

78

Table 4-6.—GPO Cost Structure, Fiscal Year 1987

Percent offiscal year 1987

Cost element revenue dollar

Procured printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5Sales of publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3Surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.4

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1Rents, communications, and utilities . . . . . 3,3Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6

Percent of fiscal year 1987revenue dollar less costof procured printing and

sales plus surplus

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2Rents, communications, and utilities. . . . . 9.8Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,0SOURCE” US Government Printing Office and Office of Technology Assessmen~

1988

Table 4.7.—GPO Main Plant Cost Structure,Fiscal Years 1984and 1985

Percent of total costs

Fiscal year Fiscal yearCost element 1984 1985

Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 66.8Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . 26.2 25.0Rents, communications, and

utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,3 4.4Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 2.6Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.2

100.0 100.0SOURCEUS Government Printing Office and Office ofTechnology Assessment,

1988

in the composition, printing, binding,procure-merit, persomel management, and documentssales/distribution areas. Most of these laborforce reductions resulted from advances inprinting technology and improvements in man-agement efficiency. The reduction in person-nel management in part reflects the reassign-ment of apprentices from personnel to theappropriate operating units.

Medium-Term Outlook

To sum up,near-termdemandfortraditionalGPO services appears to be stable, absent a

severe fiscal crisis on the part of the customeragencies or some other circumstance thatwould precipitate a rapid decrease in conven-tional printing activity, and assuming the ex-ecutive agencies continue to be required to ob-tain printing from or through GPO.

On the other hand, the GPO main plant ap-pears to be vulnerable in the medium-term (3-5 years) and beyond due to the combinationof electronic competition for some major prod-uct lines (such as the Congressional Record andFederal Register), and a high overhead coststructure necessitated largely by GPO’s cur-rent responsibilities. Additional executiveagency work could be shifted from privateprinting companies to the GPO main plant, butthis would likely increase the cost to the agen-cies. GPO could charge a special, lower ratefor most agency work, but this would meansome portion of overhead would be uncoveredand have to be paid out of direct appropria-tions or, possibly, reimbursed from net reve-nues on sales of publications. These latter alter-natives would appear to require amendmentof the relevant provisions of Title 44 of the U.S.Code. On the other hand, it is possible that costreductions resulting from the provision of elec-tronic alternatives to the Record and Regis-ter (among other publications) could offset anycost increases that might result by shiftingmore executive agency work from procured toinhouse printing.

GPO could attempt to further reduce oper-ating costs, but this may be difficult given thealready substantial labor force reductions ob-tained since the mid 1970s, absent a basic res-tructuring of GPO responsibilities and opera-tions. Some additional labor cost reductionsare likely to occur as agencies assume greaterresponsibility for composition and other pre-press functions, as a consequence of desktopand high-end electronic publishing capabilities.However, in other production areas, such aspress and binding, projected retirements couldcreate an actual labor shortage, according toGPO. OTA’S independent labor consultantconcluded that GPO workforce is relativelyold (average age of 45.2 years) and that 13 per-cent of the work force (687 persons) is eligible

79—

Table 4-8.–Major Changes in GPO Labor Force, Fiscal Years 1975-87—

Fiscal year Fiscal year N e t c h a n g e

Selected labor force categories’ 1975 1987 Number - Percent

Document sales/distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,833 930 – 903 – 49:3Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,632 616 – 1,016 –62.3Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,166 630 – 536 –46.0Press (includes prepress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006 701 –305 –30.3Printing procurement (excludes regional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 432 –286 –39.8Engineering and facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 359 –131 –26.7Personnel (includes apprentices in fiscal year 1975, but not in

fiscal year 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 104 –228 –68.7Financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 250 –117 –31.1Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 205 –64 –23.8Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 79 –45 –36.3‘L’b~ r force ~ategor,e~ ~ele~ted and defined to permit FY75-87 comparison; may not correspond exactly with current labor force cate90rles

bAsof Aug 5, 1987

SOURCE US Government Pnntlng OffIce and OffIce of Technology Assessment 1988

to retire immediately. About 35 percent of theGPO work force has over 20 years of service.’There is also the possibility of reducing GPO’soverhead costs, discussed later.

GPO Plant and Equipment

Other areas of possible cost savings includethe purchase or construction of a new mainplant building, and the upgrading of conven-tional prepress, press, and binding technology.A 1982GA0 study identified numerous ineffi-ciencies in GPO’s facilities-including mate-rials handling, storage, and production flowproblems at the main plant. OTA’S inde-pendent printing consultant examined al lofthese areas and concluded, first, that there isno compelling need for a new plant.Thepresentbuilding was specifically built to handle theload factors of the printing process, whereasvery few commercial printing facilities wereoriginally designed for printing. Most newplants are on one floor, rather than a multi-floor facility such as GPO’s, and do offer someproduction efficiencies not currently availableto GPO. However, continued renovation andupgrading of the main plant elevators shouldhelp compensate. Also, a single level building

‘Gregory Giebel, *’Technological Changes at the GovernmentPrinting Office, ’ contractor report prepared for OTA, January1988.

‘]U. S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman,Joint Committee on Printing, GPO Needs to Analyze Alterna-tives to Overcome Limitations in Government Printing Opera-tions, PLRD-82-20, Jan. 4, 1982.

would require much more acreage and wouldprobably have to be located much further awayfrom GPO’s customer base in Congress andthe executive agencies. Overall, OTA’S print-ing consultant concluded that the GPO mainplant is equal to most commercial printing fa-cilities handling a comparable volume of work.However, if viable options become availableto GPO, a detailed evaluation would be war-ranted, taking into account all the factorsmentioned above and others, especially anystrategic decisions on GPO’s future role in con-ventional printing and electronic publishingand dissemination. One GPO building optioncurrently under consideration involves a planto transfer GPO’s main plant to GSA in ex-change for the construction of a new plant onproperty in the Washington Navy Yard, andto relocate SupDocs to a site in Suitland, Mary-land. As noted in the 1982 GAO report, cost-benefit analyses of all serious alternatives arewarranted, including continued renovation ofthe existing main plant building, as well asconstruction of a new building. Cost-benefitstudies would appropriately include consider-ation of the impacts on the cost, quality, andtimeliness of GPO main plant services, produc-tivity of GPO main plant operations, and, tothe extent possible, GPO’s general morale,sense of direction, and strategic outlook.

With respect to printing technology, OTA’Sprinting consultant concluded that GPO tech-nology at the main plant was generally on a par

80

with or exceeded the top fifth of the commer-cial printing industry. GPO was found to be ona par with the top 5 percent of private firmswith respect to composition technology, thetop 11 percent for press technology, and sub-stantially ahead for bindery technology (a moreexact estimate here was not possible given thedifferences between the GPO product mix andthat of typical commercial firms). GPO hasstayed abreast of the private sector with re-spect to conventional technology as a resultof gradual, but continuous equipment up-grades. As long as GPO provides a substan-tial volume of inplant printing services, peri-odic equipment upgrades are likely to becost-effective.

Perhaps the best example of GPO’s perform-ance in adopting new technology is the nowfully completed transition from hot type com-position to electronic photocomposition at themain plant. This transition took place largelyduring the 1970s. In fiscal year 1968, only40,000 pages were phototypeset. This in-creased to over 700,000 pages in fiscal year

1972, over 1 million pages in fiscal year 1976,and over 2.75 million in fiscal year 1980. Asof fiscal year 1986, about 3.7 million pages peryear were being phototypeset. Another exam-ple is the rapid increase in electronic input tothe GPO printing process over the past sev-eral years. As of fiscal year 1987, about threequarters of material phototypeset at the GPOmain plant was received in electronic form.

With respect to conventional press and bind-ery equipment, GPO has nearly completed amajor equipment upgrade stretching over thepast decade. Selected major equipment acqui-sitions are listed in Table 4-9 along with theacquisition date and cost for each item. Since1977, GPO has invested almost $15 million inmajor press equipment, and over $10 millionin bindery equipment. Actual totals are higherthan shown, since a large number of smallequipment items plus furniture, vehicles, andextensive renovations are not listed here.

Based on all of the above, OTA has con-cluded that, despite the possibly misleading

Table 4-9.–Selected Major Equipment, Acquisitions, GPO Press and Bindery, Since 1977, as of September 1987

Acquisit ion Acquisit ion Acquisition AcquisitionItem year cost in dol tars Item year cost “in dol IarsPress Division 1987 19,272Letter Press-Envelope . . . . . . . .Letter Press-Auto Feed

Dryer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Offset Press-Harris . . . . . . . . . .Offset Press (5 units) . . . . . . .Offset Press 35x50 (2 units). .Copier-Xerox 9200 II . . . . . . . . .Offset Press-Miehle 43x60

(7 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Offset Press-Harris (2 units). . .Offset Press-Web (3 units) . . . .Offset Press-5 Color Postal

Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...Cut-Pack System-Postal

Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Press Division . . . . . . .

Binding DivisionPaper Cutter-71 inch . . . . . . . . .Strapping Machine. . . . . . . . . . .Machine Wrap-Stretch Plastic

(2 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Inserter-Stitcher Complete .Trimmer-3 Knife (2 units) . . . . .Folding Machine (6 units). . . . .Labeler Machine. . . . . . . . . . . . .SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988

1986

19871986197919811979

197719801979

1986

1987

48,500

98,30340,663

2,025,0006,264,000

62,530

1,918,00066,000

2,136,000

1,104,674

970,084

14,733,754

1986 75,2371987 2,623

1979 23,0001987 326,4001981 243,0001985 420,0001986 4,311

Shredder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perforator (2 units). . . . . . . . . . .Nipping Machine . . . . . . . . . . . .Paper Cutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trim Paper Collection . . . . . . . .Waste Paper System . . . . . . . . .Perforator (2 units). . . . . . . . . . .Passport Machine . . . . . . . . . . .Nipping Machine . . . . . . . . . . . .Sewing Machine-Smyth

No. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cutter Spacer-Lawson . . . . . . . .Eyelet Attacher Machine . . . . .Wrapping Package Machine. . .Casemaking Machine-SmythStrapping Machine (4 units) . . .Strapping Machine-Signode

(3 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Folding Endsheet Machine . . .Casing-In Machine-

Versamatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Copier-Xerox 9500 VR . . . . . . . .Adhesive Binder (2 units) . . . . .Adhesive Mailer (2 units) . . . . .

Total Binding Division. . . . . . . .

19841985198619871986198219871983

198019841978197919791982

19841983

1983198619831983

15,60013,90047,13939,49540,58217,200

1,213,65012,300

17,35570,0005,045

37,97225,13820,000

63,0004)950

23,10012,564

6,343,347977,498

10,113,678

81

external appearance, the GPO main plant is,overall, essentially up-to-date with respect to

conventional printing technology and alreadymakes very extensive use of electronic inputand photocomposition. There will, of course,be opportunities for future technology up-grades as the need arises. Overall, however,GPO is well positioned technologically to carry

on its traditional printing responsibilities. Thestrategic challenge arises with respect to how

GPO can remain competitive and maintain orimprove cost-effectiveness in the face of pos-sible future reductions in the demand for pa-per formats (and especially demand for majorproducts produced at the main plant), increasesin demand for electronic formats, and rapidprogress in agency automation (including useof desktop and high-end electronic publishing).These possibilities are discussed later in thischapter.

TRADITIONAL GPO–LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ONLY

Under this alternative, GPO would continueto provide centralized conventional printingservices, but only for the legislative branch.The printing procurement program would ei-ther be transferred to the executive branch(e.g., to GSA) or dispersed among individualagencies. Responsibility for the DLP could beretained at GPO, as could the sale of paper for-mats by the SupDocs, or these functions couldalso be transferred to the executive branch.GPO would do little electronic dissemination.

Analysis of this alternative is illustrative ofone extreme on the spectrum of alternativesavailable and provides further insights into thefunctioning of GPO. The discussion here em-phasizes financial and labor impacts (see ch.11 and 12 for other implications).

To keep this in perspective, it is importantto note that GPO was originally establishedin 1860 primarily to serve the printing needsof Congress and to eliminate the corruptionin printing procurement that had become wide-spread. Over the following decades, executivebranch printing needs grew much faster to thepoint where, for fiscal year 1987, 85 percentof GPO work is for the executive branch.

Financial Impacts

Using fiscal year 1987 data, the restrictionof GPO to conventional printing for the legis-lative branch would have the following firstorder impacts, all other things being equal:

c the total workload of GPO would decrease

from about $771 million to about$113 mil-lion or an 85 percent reduction;the total workload at the GPO main plantwould decrease from about $180 millionto $113 million ($90 million main plantwork plus $23 million previously procured)or a 37 percent reduction (this assumesthe $23 million in procured printing forthe legislative branch would be shifted tothe main plant);the total labor force of GPO would declineby about 881 persons or about 17 percent(637 printing procurement staff and 244regional printing plant staff, all presum-ably transferred to GSA or elsewhere);the net income of GPO would decrease byabout $4.6 million due to transfer of theprinting procurement program which hasoperated at a net surplus for the past sev-eral years (presumably this net incomewould accrue to GSA, assuming the pro-curement program was kept intact and re-tained its effectiveness);the net income of GPO would increase byabout $1 million due to transfer of the re-gional printing plants (which have oper-ated at a net loss for the last several years),all other things being equal; andthe net income less expenses at the GPOmain plant would change from a surplusof several million dollars to a potential lossof several tens of millions.

These figures highlight how the GPO mainplant operation is dependent on executivebranch work to help spread the costs of gear-

82

ing up to meet the quick turnaround and di-verse needs of the legislative branch (and someexecutive branch work, such as the FederalRegister). The executive branch work helps fillin the valleys between the peaks of the con-gressional work load and utilizes labor andplant capacity that would otherwise be underu-tilized. Both in-plant and procured executivebranch work help cover GPO overhead ex-penses and are sources of net income.

The role of executive branch work can be il-lustrated using the assumptions about themain plant cost structure presented earlier.Starting with $180 million in main plant grossrevenues and assuming a 2 percent profit orsurplus, the total GPO main plant expenseswould be $176.4 million. The cost breakout forthe main plant would be as in Table 4-10. Nowif gross revenues drop by 37 percent to $113million due to the exclusion of executive branchwork, total expenses would decrease by only13 percent to about $154 million, if materialsand supplies are assumed to be variable costsbut labor, rent, and depreciation are assumedto be almost entirely (95 percent) fixed costsin the short run. The result is a swing froma net surplus of about $4 million to a net losson main plant operations of about $4 I million.If printing procurement were transferred out,there would be no net surplus from procure-ment to even partially offset this loss.

Labor Force Impacts

In order to return GPO to break even opera-tions, it would be necessary, using this hypo-thetical calculation, to cut costs and/or increaserevenues by a total of $37 million. Any signif-icant cost reductions would probably necessi-tate labor force reductions, since further cutsin the other, much smaller cost categorieswould have marginal effects at most.

Recovering the entire hypothetical deficitwould necessitate roughly a one-third reduc-tion in the main plant labor force, assumingthat this could be accomplished withoutjeopardizing the main plant’s capacity to dothe $113 million in legislative branch work. Reorganization of the production processes mightbe necessary-for example, scaling back oreliminating the night shift. Alternatively, someor all of the hypothetical deficit could be off-set through increased appropriations and/oruser fees.

If the hypothetical deficit was to be recov-ered through labor force reductions, a total re-duction in force of about 1,100 employeeswould be needed, assuming a total main plantwork force of 3,311, calculated as shown in Ta-ble 4-11. The main plant labor force of 3,311persons is estimated by deducting the Sup-Docs staff (which operates on a breakeven ba-

Table 4.10.— Hypothetical Calculation of Financial Impact of Legislative Branch GPO

Main plant Main plantExecutive and legislative work Legislative work only

Gross ;evenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $180.0 million $113.0 millionLess net surplus (assumed 2°\o). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . –3.6Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176.4 million

Assumed cost structure Assumed cost(as percent of total expense) reduction

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67°/0 $118.2 million –50/0 $112.3 millionMaterials and supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25°\0 44,1 – 370/0 27.8Rent, communications, and utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,40/0 7.8 –50/0 7.4Depreciation and other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . 3.60/o 6,3 – 50/0 6.0

$176.4 million $153.5 millionNet income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.6 million ($ 40.5 million)SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

83

Table 4-11 .—Hypothetical Main PlantTotal Labor Force Reductions

Fiscal year 1987 total GPO labor force . . . . . . . . . 5,122Less SUPDOCS staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 930

4,192Less regional printing staff –244

3,948Less printing procurement staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . –637

Current main plant labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,311Less 1/3 reduction in force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100

Reduced main plant labor force . . . . . . . . . . 2,211SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1988

sis, financially separate from the main plant)and the regional printing and printing procurement staffs (which would, in this hypotheti-cal example, be transferred to GSA). The hypo-thetical one-third labor force reduction iscalculated by dividing the net loss ($37.3 mil-lion) into the main plant labor costs ($110.0million).

GPO has previously estimated that about78 percent of the employees in the main plantPhotocomposition, Press, and Binding Divi-sions would be required to perform the legis-lative branch work (GPO defines this as con-gressional work plus the Federal Register,postal cards, passports, CFR, and OMB andPresidential documents). This means that thefiscal year 1987 staffing level of 1,947 personsfor these divisions could be reduced by only428 persons (22 percent) in order to maintainthe necessary capacity. The remaining reduc-tion of 672 persons (to provide a total of 1,100)would have to come from the Executive Of-fice, Operations, and Production Divisions.These divisions had a fiscal year 1987 com-bined staffing level of 1,364 persons, whichwould translate into a roughly 50 percent staffcut (672 out of 1,364) for these areas. The cal-culations are shown in Table 4-12.

Options available to GPO for handling thesehypothetical reductions would depend on howfast they had to be made. Overall, GPO hasa relatively old labor force with about 13 per-cent of its employees eligible for retirement,and about 35 percent having 21 or more yearsof service. Some craft units have even higher

Table 4-12.— Hypothetical Main Plant DivisionalLabor Force Reduction

Persons

Electronic Photocomposit ion Division . . ~. 616Press Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701Binding Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +630

Current FY87 labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,947x .78

Reduced labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,519Staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Executive Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693Operations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359Production Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Current FY87 labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,364x .50

Reduced labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682Staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682

Total staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . 1,110Total remaining labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,201SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1988 -

percentages. For example, of the 547 com-posers (International Typographical Union,Local No. 101), 176 (or 32 percent) are eligiblefor retirement and 326 (or 60 percent) have 21or more years of service, as shown in detail inTable 4-13.

If three years were available to make thetransition to a legislative branch GPO, the 22percent reduction in the photocomposition,press, and binding labor force probably couldbe made mostly through natural attrition(averaging 5-10 percent per year at the mainplant). However, the 50 percent reduction inthe executive office, operations, and produc-tion labor force probably could not be madeover this period of time through natural attri-tion, and some early retirement buyouts mightbe necessary. Of course, the hypothetical tran-sition would be easier if more time wereavailable.

Other Vulnerabilities

As a final note, the “traditional GPO-legis-lative branch only” alternative would be espe-cially vulnerable to any significant future re-ductions in the demand for paper formats.Prior GPO analyses have, indeed, documented

84

Table 4-13.—GPO Main Plant Composers,Years of Service and Retirement Eligibility,

Fiscal Year 1987

Number ofemployees

Years of serviceo-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4016-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16121-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19326-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9431-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3336-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Retirement eligibilityAge 55/30 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Age 60/20 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Age 62/5 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176SOURCE US Government Pnntlng Office, 1988

significant reductions over the 1975-1984period.

Thecombinedtotalsforeightprincipalmainplant products (daily Congressional Record;Federal Register; bills, resolutions, and amend-ments; committee hearings; committee re-ports; committee prints; calendars; and theCode of Federal Regulations) showed declinesof 64 percent in total number of copies printed.However, this reflected primarily a 55 percentreduction in the number of titles, which is afunction of a lower overall level of congres-sional activity rather than an indication oflower demand. The number of pages declinedby only16percent,whichmeans that theaver-age number of pages per title must have in-creased significantly over this period of time(for example, fewer but longer reports andbills). Indeed, as shown, the average numberof pages per copy almost doubled, from 36 to64 pages. Nonetheless, over the 1975-1984period, the total number of pages printed atthe GPO main plant for these eight productsdeclined by about 36 percent. The statisticalresults are shown in Table 4-14.

This volume reduction would be expected toincrease drastically per unit costs, all otherthings being equal. However, all other things

Table 4-14.—Changes in GPO Main Plant Volumefor Eight Principal Productsa, 1975”1984

1975 1984 Percentnumber number change

Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,893 13,854 –55Original pages (inmiliions) . 1.048 0.886 –16Copies (in millions) . . . . . . . . . 134.6 48.7 –64Pages per copy (average) . . . . 36 64 +78Printed pages (in trillions) . . . . 4.85 3.12 –36aDailY cO~gfeSS/Ona/ R e c o r d , F e d e r a l Ffeg/ster, bil ls, reSOILItl OnS, a n d

amendments, committee heari rigs, committee reports, committee pr! nts,calendars, and Code of Federa/ Regulatw?s

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Office and Off Ice of Technology Assessment,1988

were not equal. During this period, the GPOlabor force decreased by about 34 percent, andmore productive, less labor-intensive equip-ment was deployed. Some of the difference wasalso made up in price increases. However, asthe trend data indicate (Table 4-15), billingsfor key congressional printing and bindingitems remained remarkably stable, increasingby only 1.4 percent through fiscal year 1983and by about 17 percent through fiscal year1984.

Trend data for the entire fiscal year 1975-1987 period show only minor changes in GPObillings for hearings, committee prints andreports, and calendars. As indicated in Table4-16, billings for bills, resolutions, and amend-ments were up significantly, although this mayreflect a fiscal year 1987 anomaly since fiscalyear 1986 billings were $8.41 million, up onlymarginally from the $7.97 million expended infiscal year 1975. The only dramatic changeswere for bills, resolutions, and amendments (up35 percent), the Congressional Record (up 71percent) and the Federal Register (up 128 per-cent), as shown below. These latter two itemsare: among the biggest work orders at the mainplant, very labor intensive, the primary rea-son (along with congressional bills and reports)for overnight operations at the main plant, andamong the more vulnerable main plant prod-ucts with respect to competition from elec-tronic formats. As mentioned elsewhere in thischapter, the Record and Register are bothhighly suited to online and CD-ROM electronicformats.

85

Table 4-15.—Congressional Printing and Binding Billings Selected Items,Fiscal Years 1975, 1983, and 1984

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year “1975 1983 1984

Item (in thousands of dollars)

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,746 $16,684 $22,304Miscellaneous printing and binding . . . . . . . . . 9,776 8,720 10,042Bills, resolutions, and amendments . . . . . . . . . 7,965 7,552 6,827Miscellaneous publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,680 4,130 4,585Committee prints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,372 2,956 3,065House and Senate calendars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,720 1,256 2,138Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 1,571 958Committee reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,644 2,827 3,048Franked envelopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 759 1,111Congressional Record (daily) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,287 11,794 13,352

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $57,471 $58,249 $67,430SOURCE U S Government Printing Office and Offtce of Technology Assessment, 1988

Table 4.16.—Congressional Printing and Binding Billings, Selected Items,Fiscal Years 1975 and 1987

Fiscal year Fiscal year Percent1975 1987 change

Item (in thousands of dollars)

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,746 $16,835 –5.1 “/0

Bills, resolutions, and amendments . . . . . . . . . 7,965 10,830 + 36.0Committee prints and reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,016 7,247 +3.3House and Senate calendars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,720 1,543 – 10.0Congressional/ Record (daily) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,287 11,173 + 35.0Federal Register (daily). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,776 a 17,697 + 128.0aln~ludes billings for Congressional copies only and thus understates total billin9s

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice and Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

ELECTRONIC GPO–DECENTRALIZED

Under this alternative, the GPO would con-tinue to provide centralized conventional print-ing services (that is, Federal Government ink-on-paper printing would be obtained from orthrough GPO), expand the range of electronicpublishing services available to agencies, dis-seminate selected electronic formats on a salesbasis through SupDocs as well as traditionalpaper formats, and disseminate selected elec-tronic as well as paper and microfiche formatsto the DPL. However, government dissemina-tion of electronic formats would not be central-ized solely via GPO. Mission agencies could,at their discretion, disseminate their own elec-tronic formats, or they could opt to utilize Sup-Docs, or both. SupDocs could, at its discretion,select those electronic formats judged to besuitable for inclusion in the sales program. Fur-

thermore, electronic formats selected for inclu-sion in the DLP would be distributed to thedepository libraries either directly by the agen-cies or via GPO. Also, this alternative assumesthat GPO would develop and maintain agovernmentwide information index in cooper-ation with NTIS and would actively partici-pate in governmenttide standards-setting andinnovation activities concerning electronicprinting, publishing, and information dissem-ination.

This alternative, labelled for convenience“Electronic GPO-Decentralized,” most closelyaligns with the current development path ofGPO. GPO is conducting a number of relevantpilot projects, and is experimenting with andoccasionally implementing precursor electronic

—

86

applications. This alternative is conceptuallyviable, and, therefore, warrants careful consid-eration, due to the convergence of several keytrends in electronic technology and demand forFederal information in electronic formats.

Trends in Technology and Demand

Technology Trends

One key technology trend is the rapid in-crease in agency automation, which means thatmost agencies already are creating their origi-nal information products in electronic form,and many are also converting this material toa camera-ready format. OTA’S independentprinting consultant estimated that about 25percent of the original material is being pro-vided by Federal agencies to GPO in camera-ready format. For these pages, no typesettingor page composition by GPO is required.Almost all (98 percent) of this camera-readymaterial is estimated to originate from execu-tive branch agencies. The other 75 percent of

the original material is being provided to GPOin a variety of formats, primarily electronic,as shown in Table 4-17.

The overall picture that emerges is as fol-lows. Almost all executive agency material isbeing provided to GPO in camera-ready or elec-tronic formats, with very little material requir-ing GPO keyboarding. Almost all agency elec-tronic input is via magnetic tape. On the otherhand, roughly one half of all legislative branchmaterial requires GPO keyboarding, roughly10 percent is scanned, and the remaining 40percent of electronic input is split betweenmagnetic tape and fiber optic cable transmis-sion. The distribution of origination formatsis shown in Table 4-18 for camera-ready, man-uscript, scanned, and electronic input as a per-centage of total input and total by branch ofgovernment.

The executive branch agencies are able tocapture their own electronic keystrokes and,increasingly, do their own electronic composi-

Table 4-17.—Origination Formatsa for Material Submitted to GPO,as Percent of Total

Executive LegislativeFormat branch branch Totals

Manuscript Copyb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0/0 23.4 0/0 260/oScanned entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 4.5 5Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 10.4 52Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.96 0.04 2Fiber optic cable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10.0 10Other electronic transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.25 0.75 5

100’Y”aexcluding camera-ready cOPY.brequlring keyboarding.

SOURCE U S Government Printing Office, F R. Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

Table 4-18.—Origination Formats, Including Camera. Ready, as Percent of Totaland by Branch of Government

Percent of all Percent of allGovernment totals branch totals

Executive Legislative Executive LegislativeFormat branch branch Totals branch branch

Camera-ready. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 0.5 25 39.1 1.3Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.95 17.55 19.5 3.1 47.0Scanned entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.375 3.375 3.75 0.6 9.0Electronic input . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.86 15.89 51.75 57.2 42.6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 99.9SOURCE: U S. Government Printing Office, F R. Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

87

tion, largely because of the widespread penetra-tion of computer and word processing technol-ogies and, recently, the rapid increase in theuse of desktop and high-end electronic publish-ing. As noted in chapter 2, the GAO surveyof 114 civilian departmental agency compo-nents indicated that many are using and/ortesting relevant technologies, as summarizedin Table 4-19.

The GAO survey did not ask for estimatesof the absolute number of these technologiesin use. However, these estimates can be devel-oped from other relevant indicators, includingthe use of page makeup and page descriptionsoftware. OTA’S independent printing consul-tant has estimated that, as of year end 1987,there were already over 20,000 units of pagemakeup software in use in the Federal Gov-ernment, and over 125,000 units of page de-scription software. The detailed breakout is inTable 4-20.

OTA’S printing consultant estimates that,in addition, there are 200-350 high-end elec-tronic printers (Xerox 9700 class) in use in theFederal Government. Just these three itemsalone account for over $200 million in installedbase of electronic publishing technology (21Kunits page makeup at $600/unit + 127K unitspage description at $750/unit + 275 high-endelectronic printers at 400 K/unit = $12.6M +$95.3M + $11OM = $217.9 M). This does notinclude high-end workstations and low-end la-ser printers, among other relevant technol-ogies. Rough estimates for the latter are shownin Table 4-21.

These technologies represent, conserva-tively, roughly another $160 million in installed

Table 4.20.—Estimated Use of ElectronicPublishing Software, Calendar Year 1987

Total Estimatedunits in units in

Software/Vendor United States U.S. GovernmentPage makeup softwareAldus Pagemaker. . . . . . . . 115,000 6,000Xerox Ventura . . . . . . . . . . 85,000 12,000All others ... , ... , . . . . . . 66,000 3,000

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226,000 21,000Page description softwareHewlett. Packard PCL . . . . 210,000 29,000Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420,000 14,000Proprietary for printer . . . . 790,000 67,000Typesetter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000 8,700Other laser printer. . . . . . . 45,000 11,000

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,590,000 129,700SOURCE: TypeWorld, F J. Romano, 19S8

Table 4-21 .—Estimated Use of Other ElectronicPublishing Technologies, Estimated,

Calendar Year 1987

Estimated Estimatedunits in cost

Technology U.S. Government per unit

High-end electronicpublishing software . . . loos $40K

(e.g., Interleaf)High-end workstation . . . 1 ,000s $20K

(e.g., Sun)Low-end laser printers . . 10,000s $ 3K

(e.g., HP Laserjet)SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

equipment (assuming 300 units high-end soft-ware at $40 Khmit + 3000 units highend work-stations at $20 K/unit + 30,000 units low-endlaser printers at $3 K/unit = $12M + $60M+ $90M = $162 M). These estimates suggestthat the Federal Government, and primarilythe executive agencies, have already investedabout $350-$400 million in electronic publish-

Table 4“19.—Civilian Department Agency Use of selected Electronic Technologies(percent of agencies responding)

Currently in Currently prototypingTechnology operational use or pilot testing Totals

Computer-aided page makeup . . . . . . . . 50.0 8.8 58.8Computer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.8 7.9 73.7Electronic photocomposition . . . . . . . . . 43.9 7,9 51.8Laser and other non-impact printing . . . 64.0 1.8 65.8Desktop publishing system. . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 14.9 49.1Electronic publishing system . . . . . . . . . 21.1 10.5 31.6SOURCE U S Government Printing Office, F R Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 19S8

88

ing and related technologies, with no end toagency procurements in sight. Also, thesefigures do not include any allocation of the over25,000 mainframe computers and the esti-mated 500,000 microcomputers in the FederalGovernment that are used in part for electronicpublishing applications. Finally, these figuresdo not reflect the rapidly growing agency pi-lot tests and operational applications for di-rect electronic dissemination via bulletinboards, electronic mail, CD-ROM, and the like.

Trends in Demand

This high level of agency activity reflects,in part, opportunities presented by advancingtechnology and the overall drive to automateagency functions. However, agency activitiesalso reflect growing demand on the part of Fed-eral information users to receive informationin electronic formats.

The results of the GAO survey of Federalinformation users document this demand. Forexample, the depository library community,which heavily reflects university, research, and

Federal libraries, indicated a strong preferenceto obtain increasing percentages of Federal in-formation in electronic form and declining per-centages in paper and microfiche. The resultsfor 318 depository libraries responding out ofa sample of 450 (34 out of 50 regional deposi-tory libraries and 284 out of 400 selective de-pository libraries) are highlighted in Table 4-22. Only the most significant changes are in-cluded here. These results show that the librarycommunity desires or anticipates decreases inuse of paper and microfiche formats, signifi-cant increases in electronic mail or bulletinboards and floppy disks, and substantial in-creases in online databases and compact opti-cal disks.

Trends for other segments of the Federal in-formation user community are not so dramaticbut show a similar pattern. The results for 109scientific and technical associations respond-ing to the GAO survey (out of a sample of 250)are highlighted in Table 4-23.

The GAO survey of Federal agencies indi-cates that agency use of electronic dissemina-

Table 4“22.—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of libraries using

Next PercentType of information Format Now 3 years change

Congressional record/hearing/ paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 234 – 13.7reports/bills microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 225 – 17.9

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 132 + 124.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27 large increasecompact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 112 + 3,633.0

Scientific and technical paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 172 – 17.2reports/information microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 159 –21 .7

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 95 +25.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27 + 2,600.0compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 + 767.0

Press releases/bulletins paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 183 –25.6microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 35 –10.3electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 9 51 +467.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 50 + 108.0compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18 + 1,700.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 270 – 12.6microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 134 –44.4electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 12 27 + 125.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 158 + 53.4magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 25 + 127.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 +442.0videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12 large increasecompact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 140 +833.0

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988,—

Statistical data

89

Table 4-23.—Scientific and Technical Association Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of associations usingNext Percent

Type of information Format Now 3 years changeCongressional record/hearings/ paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 57 –6.6

reports/bills electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . 1 18 + 1,700.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 22 + 450.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13 large increase

Scientific and technical paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 75 – 15.7i nformat ion microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 – 37.5

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 6 24 + 300.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 + 233.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 20 + 233.0compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 + 200.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 60 – 22.1electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 3 26 + 767.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 16 + 220.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10 + 900.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 49 –18,3electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 1 11 +1,000.0online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 23 +283.0floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 23 +360.0compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 +400.0

Press releases/bulletins

Statistical data

SOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Information Users 1988

tionis already significant forsometypesofinformation and is projected to expand con-siderably over the next 3years. For the 114civilian departmental agency components re-spending, some key trends are in dicated inTa-ble 4-24.

While generalizations are difficult, the sur-vey data suggest that, for several major typesof Federal information, especially statisticaldata, scientific and technical reports/informa-tion, administrative reports, and press re-leases, about one-fifth to one-third of theexecutive branch agencies expect to have elec-tronic dissemination available within 3 years.The dominant electronic formats vary by typeof information. Probably one-tenth to one-eighth of the agencies expect to have electronicdissemination of other types of Federal infor-mation (e.g., pamphlets, manuals, regulations,directories). Overall, however, the survey datasuggest that despite dramatic increases in elec-tronic formats, paper will still be the dominantformat for the near- to medium-term.

Opportunities and Challenges

These trends in technology, user demand,and agency activities present GPO with a num-

ber of challenges and opportunities. Principalamong these are: electronic input, structureddatabase standards, electronic publishing sup-port, dissemination of electronic formats, staff-ing, and capital investment.

Electronic Input

As noted earlier, most Federal agencies al-ready have the technology needed to originatematerials in electronic form and capture thekey strokes needed to initially enter the dataand make subsequent revisions. Once the ma-terial is ready for composition and layout, andassuming the originating agency is not per-forming these functions, it is generally morecost-effective to transmit the data in electronicform to GPO so as to minimize any necessaryrekeyboarding. The cost savings can be sub-stantial. GPO estimates that rekeyboardingcosts on average $35 to $50 per page, whereaselectronic input costs $1 to $15 per page, de-pending on how much recoding and reformat-ting are needed. For electronic input materialsusing the GPO structured database standards,the average cost is $1 to $2 per page, since norekey boarding and minimal recoding or refor-matting are needed.

90

Table 4-24.—Agency Activities and Plans for Electronic Information Dissemination, by Type and Format

Percent of agencies using

NextType of information Format Now 3 yearsa

Scientific and technical reports/information

Press releases

Pamphlets/bulletins

Manuals

Statistical data

Administrative reports Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .FIoppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Video tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Decisions/opinions Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rules, regulations, directives, Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .circulars Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Directories/c atalogs/bibl iographies Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Com~act orMical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14.0 ”/00.9

12.36.17,9—

6.16.1

14.914.08.8—

13.25.37.03.56.1

8.83.54.41.8

0.90.93.55.3—

2.6—2.60.92.6

8.80.92.66.1

0.91.88.88.85.30.9—

7.93.5

17.531.619.3

.

~b.~ “/08.8

21.111.416.72.6

15.810.518.416.716.78.8

28.112.313.2

7.08.8

18.410.513.2

9.6

9.65.3

11.414.03.5

10.55.39.64.46.1

18.46.1

10.512.3

11.47.9

18.411.414.93.57.9

20.212.325.634.231.6

2.6

Percentchange

+87.90/o+ 878.0

+71 .5+82.0

+ 111.4++ 159.0

+72.1+23.5+ 19.3+ 90.0

+

+ 112.9+ 132.1

+ 88.5+ 100.0+44.3

+ 109.0+ 200.0+200.0+433.3

+ 966.6+488.9+225.7+ 164.2+

+303.9++269.2+ 388.9+ 134.6

+ 109,1+577.8+ 303.9+ 101.6

+ 1,167.0+ 339.0+ 109.1+29.5

+ 181.1+288.9+

+ 155.7+251 ,4

+46.3+8.2

+63.7+

%alculated by adding the percentage of agencies now using the format indicated to the number of agencies who expect to use the format within the next 3 years.Assumes that agencies currently using a format will continue to do so.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal agencies, 1987.

GPO already provides multiple options for GPO has scanners that can read most of theelectronic input, as noted earlier, including popular typewriter and word processor fontsscanned input, floppy disks, magnetic tapes, and convert the material from alphanumericdial-up telephone lines, and fiber optic lines. characters to electronic form. However, theSome of these options could be refined and/or scanned copy must be very clear and legibleexpanded. in order to obtain a low error rate and, in any

91

event, must be coded as well as scanned in or-der to produce a database for input to the GPOcomposition system. As a result, the cost ofscanned input is higher than other purely elec-tronic input modes but, when properly sel-ected, can be much lower than rekeyboarding.

Scannable material is still a small percent-age (about one-fifth) of all material in manu-script form received by GPO. As long as man-uscript copy is submitted, the more that isscannable, the lower the costs. GPO could in-tensify efforts to advise agency customers ofthe scanner option and the typeface and for-mat requirements. GPO could also aggressivelyevaluate state-of-the-art scanner technology inorder to increase the range of typefaces and fontsthat can be scanned, and to simplify recodingto the extent feasible. Also, agencies which havetheir own scanners could be encouraged to dothe scanning themselves and submit materialsto GPO in floppy disk or other direct electronicformat. However, in the final analysis, scan-ners are much slower and more error-pronethan direct electronic formats.

GPO has a floppy disk reader that is capa-ble of reading over 100 different disk formatsfrom a wide range of word processing systems.Agencies can submit their material on floppydisks, and the word processing codes for type-face and format used on these disks can be con-verted to GPO’s structured database codes.Very few agencies currently make use of thisoption. GPO could encourage greater agency useof floppy disk input, especially as a substitutefor manuscript submission, which requires com-plete rekeyboarding. GPO could also survey theFederal agencies to ascertain the types and dis-tribution of word processing systems beingused, and could add capability to existing GPOequipment to convert other kinds of disk for-mats used by agencies. Floppy disk conversiondoes require quality control on the part of theagencies to insure consistently error-free cod-ing. Floppy disk input is generally best suitedfor shorter documents, cheaper than scannedinput, but more expensive than magnetic tapeinput.

Magnetic tape input is the dominant modeused by executive agencies, and is used to alesser, but still significant, extent by legisla-

tive branch agencies. Magnetic tape representsa high speed, high volume, low cost per page wayto transmit material from originating agenciesto GPO for composition, typesetting, and print-ing. Magnetic tapes can be provided to GPOin any of three formats: database tapes, directdrive tapes, and data tapes.

Database tapes are produced by the originat-ing agency (or an agency contractor) usingGPO’s structured database specifications.These tapes require no code conversion andserve as input to the GPO composition sys-tem. GPO has been processing database tapesfor nearly twenty years. The preparation ofcamera ready copy at GPO from databasetapes is inexpensive, priced at $1.85 per page.The preparation of film negatives from datatapes costs $3.15 per page. Direct drive tapesare produced by the originating agency (or anagency contractor) using not only GPO’s struc-tured database specifications, but also GPO’Selectronic composition codes (with type faceand page format already specified). Directdrive tapes provide direct input to GPO’s pho-totypesetters, producing camera ready copyor film negatives. The preparation of cameraready copy or film negatives from direct drivetapes is $0.30 cheaper per page than from data-base tapes, at $1.55 and $2.85 per page respec-tively, and is a low-cost way of providing ma-terials to GPO. The use of both database anddirect drive tapes has increased in recent years,as indicated in Table 4-25.

These two forms of magnetic tape input arelikely to continue at or above present levelsfor the forseeable future, so long as traditionalink-on-paper output formats are needed andGPO traditional printing services remain com-petitive. Some agencies have the capability toproduce magnetic tapes, but do not have the

Table 4-25.—GPO Pages Produced from Database andDirect Drive Magnetic Tapes, Fiscal Years 1983-87

Database tapes Direct drive tapesFiscal year total pages total pages1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392,162 350,7231984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654,606 859,4971985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769,791 781,3981986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926,445 724,8891987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,507 838,545SOURCE U S Government Pr!ntlng Off Ice, 1988

92

expertise or desire to code the tapes to GPOspecifications. In these cases, GPO does nothave to rekeyboard the substantive material,but does have to convert from agency codesto GPO’s structured database standards andinsert composition codes. These tapes are han-dled on a case-by-case basis similar to thefloppy disks.

A final means of input to be discussed hereis electronic transmission via dial-up telephonelines, fiber optic lines, satellite private lines,and the like. Conceptually, the originatingagency keyboards the data on its own micro-computer or other terminal, electronicallytransmits the data via a telecommunicationslink to GPO for composition, and electronicallyreceives the proof pages back from GPO viathe telecommunications link for printout ona laser printer. Corrections can be made on theproof copy and electronically transmitted (ormailed) back to GPO, where the final pages areproduced on GPO’s phototypesetters. As ofJanuary 15, 1988, the organizations listed inTable 4-26 were using dial-up transmission forinput and proofing of various publications.

While electronic transmission represents, atpresent, a small portion of total input to GPO,this use for electronic input is likely to growsignificantly, especially if proven to be cost ef-fective. The experience with the fiber optictransmission between the Senate Office ofLegislative Counsel and GPO is illustrative.The Legislative Counsel uses a fiber optic linkto transmit draft bills to GPO, where they aretypeset and transmitted back to the Legisla-tive Counsel’s Office and proof copies arepMted out on laser printers. During fiscal year1987, 163,893 pages were transmitted in thisfashion at a total GPO billable cost of $75,350,or about $0.46 per page. This appears to bea competitive price, although it presumablydoes not reflect any capital costs (such as thefiber optic link or laser printers) and does notinclude the GPO cost of printing copies of thebills in final form. Also, bills are very straightforward in format. While not strictly compara-ble, the average GPO per page compositioncost for the U.S. Code using magnetic tape in-put was about $7.40 per page in fiscal year 1986

Table 4-26.—GPO Dial-Up Electronic TransmissionCustomers, January ,388

Executive branchDepartment of CommerceDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation

AdministrationDepartment of the Treasury, Customs BureauVeterans AdministrationOffice of Management and BudgetOffice of the Federal Register, Code of Federal

Regulations

Legislative branchGPO—Daily Congressional Record, Record Index, BillsLibrary of Congress

House of RepresentativesCommittee on Banking, HearingCommittee on the Budget, HearingCommittee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing,

Committee PrintCommittee on Foreign Affairs, Committee PrintsCommittee on the Judiciary, HearingsCommittee on Small Business, HearingsCommittee on Veterans Affairs, Committee Print,

Hearings, Report, Title 38 (U.S. Code)Sergeant At Arms, NoticeOffice of Legislative CounselOffice of the Clerk, Calendars, Lists, Stationary,

Directory

U.S. SenateCommittee on Veterans Affairs, HearingOffice of the Secretary, Document, Book, Senate

JournalOffice of Legislative Counsel

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

(6,158 pages at a total cost of $45,592). TheU.S. Code is more complex and contains morecharacters per page than a bill, and bills usu-ally go through several revisions. If one as-sumes three revision cycles for bills, with 4 billpages equivalent to one U.S. Code page, thecosts are similar.

Structured Database Standard

As mentioned in chapter 3, a structured data-base standard is a key aspect of overall stand-ards development for electronic publishing anddissemination. GPO has developed and imple-mented what it calls a logically structured full-text database standard or specification, or sim-ply a structured database standard for short.All this really means is that the database (con-taining textual, tabular, and/or numerical in-formation) contains no coding unique to a specific word processing or typesetting system.

93

Data elements are tagged with an identifierthat can be used to control the format of a par-ticular document. Users who agree on and im-plement a common set of structured databasestandards are able to change the database eas-ily and cost-effectively from one location toanother, one format to another, and one revi-sion to a later revision or edition.

GPO uses its own structured databasestandard for the vast majority of materialscomposed and produced at the GPO mainplant. However, the GPO standard is not, atpresent, generally accepted by private indus-try and significant parts of the Federal Gov-ernment. For example, DoD is committed tothe Standard Generalized Markup Language(SGML) approach, which is similar to GPO’sapproach, but still a distinctly different stand-ard. Many of the desktop and high-end elec-tronic publishing systems located in Federalagencies use display oriented standards (whatyou see on the screen is what you get in thedocument) and/or structured database ap-proaches different from GPO’S.

GPO indicates that software could be writ-ten to convert SGML (or presumably any othermarkup language) automatically into GPO’slogically structured full text database ap-proach. Also, GPO is prototyping a desktopmicrocomputer-based version of its structureddatabase software.

In sum, as noted in Table 4-27 there is signifi-cant use of GPO’s database standard. But thispercentage of use is only a small fraction of allgovernment publications. This suggests a sig-nificant, unrealized opportunity to apply GPO’sor some other approach as a broadly acceptedand acceptable government wide databasestandard.

Electronic Publishing Support

Under the electronic GPO-decentralized al-ternative, GPO would need to develop an over-all electronic publishing strategy that lever-ages GPO strengths to meet changing needsof the Federal agencies. This strategy is likelyto differ for the executive and legislativebranches of government. As presented in de-

Table 4-27.—Departmental Applications of GPOStructured Full Text Database Standard,

as of November 1987— —

Number of publicationsor publication series

Depart ment using GPO standard

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Defense (other) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2HHS a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . 3Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163FIHe alth and HUrnan sewlces

SOURCE U.S Government Prfntlng Off Ice, 1988

tail earlier, the executive branch has made andcontinues to make a major investment in elec-tronic publishing and related technologies,typically as part of agency automation pro-grams. While implementation varies widely,electronic publishing is conceptually viewedas part of agency information resources nlan-agement (IRM), and staffing, budgeting, andthe like are evolving within the IRM frame-work. Many agencies are committed to a tran-sition from paper to electronic-based opera-tions, although the transition is likely to takemany years.

For the executive branch, several roles forGPO are emerging. First, GPO can continueto provide traditional printing services eitherat the well-equipped main plant or via outsideprocurement. Second, GPO can continue to im-prove cost-effectiveness at the input andprepress end of the printing process by en-couraging electronic submissions, already atvery high levels, and dial-up composition serv-ices, where appropriate. Third, GPO can en-courage adoption of governmentwide struc-tured database standards as discussed above.Fourth, GPO can provide or facilitate mecha-nisms for training and education about elec-tronic publishing.

. . . . .

94

On the one hand, GPO’s greatest assets areits traditional printing facilities and laborforce, coupled with a substantially automatedprepress capability, including electronic pho-tocomposition and typesetting. GPO is wellsuited for agency work requiring typeset qual-ity ink-on-paper output, for large documentsand long press runs, and for a variety of spe-cialty jobs. GPO’s structured database stand-ard, or some variation thereof, is well suitedto provide cost-effective linkages between doc-ument origination, revision, and multi-formatdissemination, regardless of who is doing thedisseminating. On the other hand, many of theexecutive agencies are committed to acquir-ing and implementing their own electronic pub-lishing and dissemination capability, largelyas part of agency automation programs inwhich GPO has little or no involvement. Someagencies, and especially the defense and regu-latory agencies, are determined to reduce theirdependence on paper drastically within thenext few years.

The plans and activities of defense agenciesare particularly important, since, as shown inTable 4-28, the Army, Navy, and Air Force to-gether account for about $250 million in GPObillings or roughly one-third of total GPO bill-ings. The Navy, for example, has establishedthe “paperless ship” as a prime directive. Allmilitary services are hoping to place most

Table 4-28.—Ten Largest GPO Printing Customers,Fiscal Year 1986

Fiscal year 1986 billingsPercent of

Dollars in fiscal yearCustomer mill ions 1986 totala

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.7 18.3Navy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6 10.1Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0 9.2Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6 8.9Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . 53.0HHS b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.8 : : :Air Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 6.5GSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 3.1Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 3.0Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 2.6aperCent of f~~Cal year IgSS GPo total revenues of $737 million net of wblica.

tions sales, appropriations, and reimbursementsbHealth and Human services.SOURCE U.S Government Prlntlng Office, 19SS

manuals, directives, and technical documen-tation on electronic media for filing, revising,updating, and disseminating.

GPO’s high dependence on printing for de-fense customers is concentrated at several ofthe regional procurement and printing facil-ities, as shown in Table 4-29. In the extremecase that most traditional ink-on-paper defensework was phased out (over a period of severalto many years), only the GPO main printingplant, rapid response center, Chicago, Denver,New York, and San Francisco regional print-ing plants, and Denver and Seattle regionalprocurement offices would be substantially un-affected. All other offices could lose between

Table 4.29.—Distribution of GPO Defense Customersby Procurement and Printing Offices, Fiscal Year 1986

Total Defense Agencybillings, fiscal year 1986a

Dollars in Percent ofmil I ions office totalb

Procurement officesBoston Regional . . . . . . . . .Philadelphia Regional . . . . .New York Regional . . . . . . .Hampton Regional . . . . . . .Atlanta Regional . . . . . . . . .Chicago Regional . . . . . . . .Columbus Regional. . . . . . .St. Louis Regional. . . . . . . .Dallas Regional . . . . . . . . . .Denver Regional . . . . . . . . .Los Angeles Regional . . . .San Francisco Regional . . .Seattle Regional . . . . . . . . .San Antonio Satellite . . . . .Charleston Satellite . . . . . .San Diego Satellite . . . . . . .Oklahoma City Satellite . . .Rapid Response Center . . .

Printing OfficesChicago Regional . . . . . . . .Denver Regional . . . . . . . . .New York Regional . . . . . . .San Francisco Regional . . .Seattle Regional . . . . . . . . .Rapid Response Center . . .

Main PiantProcurement. . . . . . . . . . . . .Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.327.0

7.319.523.721.8

8.312.013.73.57.17.12.72.61.10.20.071.2

0.020.10.50.10.21.4

63.617.2

69.984.858.289.771.173.668.370.461.423,777.052<726,495.685,299.4

100.09.7

1.04.8

34.316.859.615.5

19.39.3

a For Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and Other Defense

AgenciesbDefense agency billings calculated as a percentage of total billings fOr each

Office

SOURCE: U S. Government Printing Office, 19SS

-.. ... —-. —.

95

half and over 90 percent of current billings,all other things being equal.

Clearly, then, an important part of GPO’selectronic publishing strategy would logicallybe a very careful analysis of how defense auto-mation activities are likely to affect the de-mand for traditional GPO printing servicesover what time frame, and what are the lever-aged opportunities for GPO with respect to theemerging defense electronic information infra-structure.

Such an analysis would require, first, thatGPO obtain basic information about defenseagency automation plans. Up to now, GPO hasdirectly participated in only a handful of de-fense automation programs, including theArmy Programs 600-S (terminated before con-tract award) and 400-S (contract awarded in1984) and the Air Force Program 50-S (con-tract awarded in 1988). However, these threeelectronic publishing programs represent onlya fraction of all relevant DoD activities. Forexample, GPO did not participate in theNavy’s “Printing on Demand System” de-signed to produce 15,000 15-page documentsper day on an electronic printing-on-demandbasis.

In addition to keeping more fully informedon agency automation activities (both militaryand civilian), GPO could establish an electronicpublishing laboratory and innovation centerfor both GPO and agency personnel. GPO al-ready has taken some action along these lineswith respect to establishment of the “dial-upcomposition service’ now available. This serv-ice permits agencies to originate material fromagency microcomputers, transmit the materialover telephone or fiber optic lines to GPO fortypesetting, and receive the typeset materialvia transmission back to the agency for print-ing of proof copies on agency laser printers.This dial-up service uses GPO’s logically-struc-tured database, and GPO provides both a dem-onstration room and a training program.

This concept could be expanded to a muchwider range of electronic publishing applica-tions, including high-end and optical disk con-figurations. From a strategic perspective, GPO

would benefit from staying abreast or, perhaps,ahead of agency applications and thereby bein a much better position to identify opportu-nities to meet agency needs. In a decentralizedand competitive electronic environment whichincreasingly characterizes the Federal Govern-ment, GPO will have to be imovative in match-ing its expertise with agency needs. Agencyneeds will vary over a wide spectrum and willchange over time at an increasingly rapid pace.Some agencies will look to GPO for a widerange of electronic publishing services, assum-ing such services are available, while otherswill be completely independent of GPO, regard-less of what GPO offers.

At this point in time, it is not possible todetermine with precision the extent of agencyneeds for GPO electronic publishing services.In 1986, GPO conducted its own survey ofagency needs. The results (based on 175 of 850questionnaires returned—a 20 percent re-sponse rate) strongly indicate that almost allagencies will be using electronic publishingwithin 5 years, especially for reference mate-rials, technical documentation, and periodicals,but the role of GPO is much less clear. Roughlyone-fifth to one-quarter of the respondents in-dicated a near-term preference for GPO auto-matic composition, computer-aided page mak-eup, and typeset quality output, increasing toabout one-third of the respondents in 5 years.This compares to the roughly two-thirds of therespondents who indicated an overall intentto use these electronic publishing services in5 years. This suggests that perhaps up to aboutone-half of these types of agency electronicpublishing work might be done by GPO, andthe other half by the agencies themselves (orby agency contractors). The results suggesta relatively smaller role for GPO with respectto text input and editing, electronic display,data telecommunicating, and computer gen-erated graphics, although the overall use ofthese GPO services was still projected to growsignificantly.

The response rate to this 1986 survey waslow, and both agency and GPO activities–aswell as the underlying technologies-havechanged markedly since then. Clearly, a new

96

survey is needed and hopefully with a muchhigher response rate. Some highlights from the1986 survey are shown in Table 4-30.

Several of the agency respondents indicatedin written comments that use of GPO elec-tronic publishing services would depend inlarge part on whether such services were cost-effective compared to in-house costs or com-mercial rates. In essence, GPO is competingfor agency electronic publishing businessagainst agency inhouse, contractor, and com-mercial vendor alternatives. GPO is alreadymoving to provide more electronic publishingoptions, but the pace is still much slower thanthe rates of change in technology, agency activ-ities, and user needs.

While GPO training and innovation activi-ties are relevant to all branches of government,the role of GPO with respect to legislativebranch electronic publishing could be differ-ent in several key ways. First, the legislativebranch has not yet made the major capital in-

vestment in the technical infrastructure thatmakes decentralized executive branch activi-ties a reality. Second, the legislative branchgenerally does not have a large number of staffalready trained in electronic publishing. Third,GPO is in the legislative branch, so separationof powers concerns do not apply. Fourth, GPOalready has a central role in many legislativebranch publishing activities. And fifth, manyof GPO’s own pilot projects involve the legis-lative branch, such as the fiber optic links be-tween GPO and the Senate Office of Legisla-tive Counsel, House Office of LegislativeCounsel, and House Information Systems Of-fice (HIS).

For all of these reasons, GPO could developplans for an expanded role with respect to thelegislative branch. These plans could include theGPO provided capability for congressional com-mittees and offices to search, retrieve, and print-on-demand key governmental process documentssuch as the Congressional Record, Record Index,

Table 4-30.—Federal Agency Electronic Publishing Activities and Plans,as of 1986 in Percent of Agencies Responding

Types of documents for which electronicpublishing is/will be used Currently In 5 Years

Reference Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35’/0 57 ”/0Technical documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 56Periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 48Throwaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 36Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 31Legal documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 20

Electronic publishing services thatare/will be used Currently Next year In 5 years

Text input and editing (microcomputers,word processors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75’/0 820/o 87°\o

Automatic composition (software/systems) . . 25 40 56Computer generated graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 59 77Computer-aided page makeup, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 34 61Typeset quality output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 45 57Electronic display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 43 58Data telecommunicating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 54 68

GPO electronic publishing servicesthat will be used Next year In 5 years

Text input and editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90/0 140/0Automatic composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 28Computer generated graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 20Computer-aided page markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 30Typeset quality output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 38Electronic display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 16Data telecommunicating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 18SOURCE U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988.

97

Federal Register and Code of Federal Regula-tions, all of which are already in an electronicstructured database format. This concept couldbe extended to include the capability to search,retrieve, and print-on-demand selected commit-tee prints, reports, and hearings, although thedegree of difficulty would be considerablygreater since little of this material is currentlyin structured database format. This problemcould be gradually eliminated overtime if morecommittees utilized GPO electronic databaseand photocomposition capability, either on adial-up or floppy disk basis. These alternativeswill become more widely possible as the pene-tration of microcomputers on Capitol Hill con-tinues. Any detailed planning along these lineswould need to take into account the inevita-ble increase in desktop publishing (softwarehas decreased to the $600 per unit range) andthe complementary roles of GPO, the Libraryof Congress, HIS, and the Senate ComputerCenter.

Dissemination of Electronic Formats

Under the “Electronic GPO-Decentralized’alternative, SupDocs would select agency elec-tronic format information products for inclu-sion in the GPO sales program, presumablybased on an evaluation of sales potential. Agen-cies could sell such products as well, but couldalso opt, at agency discretion, to use SupDocsas their sales outlet.

At the present time, SupDocs includes onlya few dozen magnetic tape products in the salesprogram. These tapes are sold at the usual costplus 50 percent (in accordance with Title 44of the U.S. Code) and include, for example, theCongressional Record, U.S. Code, Code of Fed-eral Regulations, Federal Reg”ster, StatisticalAbstract of the U. S., Budget of the UnitedStates, Weekly Compilations of PresidentialDocuments, and U.S. Government Manual. Atthe moment, these magnetic tape products aresold primarily to commercial information ven-dors–such as Mead, WE STLAW, DIALOG,Legi-Slate, Congressional Quarterly, and BRS—which repackage or enhance and resell theinformation.

GPO planning for an expanded offering ofelectronic formats would need to take into ac-count questions of demand, economies of scale,cost, private sector competition, and market-ing. The results of the GAO surveys of Fed-eral information users clearly indicated a grow-ing demand for electronic formats, as discussedearlier. As part of these surveys, GAO alsoasked respondents to estimate the usefulnessof a variet y of online and offline Federal infor-mation formats. The depository library com-munity indicated the strongest positive re-sponse, with a clear majority of respondentsfinding the illustrative items to be useful.These results (based on responses from 318 de-pository libraries, out of a sample of 451) aresummarized in Table 4-31 and the number oflibraries rating each item as moderately use-ful, useful, or greatly useful out of the totalrespondents for that item. The remaining per-centages (not shown in Table 4-31) includethose libraries rating the item as somewhatuseful or having little or no use. The respond-ents were asked to reply irrespective of howthe formats might be provided (e.g., by the Fed-eral Government, commercial vendors, and/ornot-for-profit organizations).

The depository library results suggest verystrong demand for the Congressional Record,calendars and bill status, the Federal Reg”s-ter, an index to Federal information, and anintegrated database in both online and offlineelectronic formats. Demand for agency pressreleases and reports is weaker. In terms of in-tensity of demand, as measured by the percent-age of libraries rating these items as greatlyuseful, the results indicate the highest rank-ings for the index and integrated database (on-line and offline) followed by the Reg”ster (on-line and offline), committee calendar and billstatus (online), and Record (online and offline).

The information needs of depository librariescould, of course, be met to some extent throughDLP, as discussed in detail in chapters 6 and7. However, the depository libraries serve asa good indicator of demand among library andinformation science professionals and thosegroups in American society that are the mostinformation-intensive.

98

Table 4-31 .—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information Electronic Formats

Percent of libraries respondingmoderately to greatly useful

Online Offline CD-ROMItem immediate access issued monthly

Congressional Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 74Committee Calendar and Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 60Federal Register. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 80Federal Agency Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 62Comprehensive Index to Federal Information . . . . . . . . . 94 90Integrated Database of Key Federal

Statistical Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 88SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

GAO also surveyed scientific and technicalassociations and general associations (trade,professional, consumer, etc.). The results(based on 133 responses from a sample of 250scientific and technical associations, and 134out of 350 general associations) are similar tothose of the depository libraries, but with aconsiderably lower level of intensity. In otherwords, while the relative preferences for vari-ous types of electronic information formatswere roughly the same, the overall percentagesof respondents rating the items as moderatelyto greatly useful were about half to three-quarters that of the libraries for online access,and about one-third to one-half for offline ac-cess. The survey results for the associationsare highlighted in Table 4-32.

All categories of respondents indicated thatthe index and integrated database would bethe most useful among the items included inthe survey. Unlike the depository libraries,which indicated little difference in usefulnessof online versus offline formats, the associa-tions showed a clear preference for online elec-tronic formats. This may reflect, in part, differ-ences in the nature of demand. For example,researchers using libraries may have a less ur-gent need for some types of Federal informa-tion and, therefore, might find monthly CD-ROMS to be adequate. Many associations maybe primarily concerned with only the latest,up -to the minute information that necessitatesonline access. It is also probable that the asso-ciations are less familiar with CD-ROM tech-nology than the libraries. Indeed, relatively few

associations reported having access to CD-ROM readers compared to the libraries, as in-dicated in Table 4-33.

Clearly, depository libraries have better ac-cess to all categories of technology listed ex-cept mainframe computers. Scientific and tech-nical associations have generally better accessthan the general associations, with the excep-tion of microfiche readers, CD-ROM readers,and videodisk players, where the groups ofassociations are about equal.

The implications for SupDocs are several.First, there does appear to be an already sig-nificant demand for electronic formats, but,second, this demand at the moment is some-what ahead of the actual technical capabilityof users, especially with respect to CD-ROM.Taking all survey groups together, online de-mand ranges from 34 to 94 percent of respond-ents while microcomputer with modem capa-bility ranges from 54 to 83 percent. OfflineCD-ROM demand ranges from 22 to 90 per-cent, but CD-ROM reader capability rangesfrom only 6 to 41 percent. However, third, con-tinually declining equipment costs mean thatthe gap between user demand and technicalcapability is likely to close rather rapidly.Microcomputers cost $1,500 or less, modemsabout $300, and CD-ROM readers about $700.

For types of information where a demandhas been established, SupDocs would need todetermine if including a particular item in thesales program would be cost-effective and com-petitive relative to any other alternatives that

.

99

Table 4-32.—Scientific, Technical, and General Association Demand for Federal Information Electronic Formats

Percent of associations responding moderately to greatly useful

Scientific and technicalassociations General associations

Online Offline CD-ROM Online Offline CD-ROMItem immediate access issued monthly immediate access issued monthly

Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ”/0 220/0 530/0 390/0Committee Calendar and Bill Status . . . . . . . . 39 23 54 36Federal Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 27 55 41Federal Agency Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 30 54 36Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 33 53 40Comprehensive Index to Federal

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 43 60 43Integrated Database of Key Federal

Statistical Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 42 63 43SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

Table 4-33.—Library and Association Access toInformation Dissemination Technology

Percent of libraries orassociations responding

ScientificDepository and technical General

Technology libraries associations associations

Microcomputer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700/0 640/o 51 “/0Microcomputer with modem (for online access) . . 83 65 54Microfiche reader. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 24 22Microfiche reader with printer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 18 12CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6 6Videodisk player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11 12Mainframe computer (for tape/disk access) . . . . . . 37 36 27SOURCE. GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

may be available to users. For many types ofFederal information, individual agencies andprivate sector vendors might decide to mar-ket electronic formats. In other words, Sup-Docs would be operating in a more competi-tive environment than has traditionally beenthe case with respect to paper formats. Thus,for example, at present the Bureau of theCensus sells paper formats via the SupDocssales program, but sells magnetic tapes andfloppy disks itself and also offers online elec-tronic bulletin board services. Both the Bureauof the Census and private vendors are devel-oping CD-ROM products, and some CensusCD-ROM products will be disseminated as partof DLP.

The approach taken by SupDocs in decid-ing what to include in the sales program couldvary depending on the particular information

product. Some items, such as a government-wide information index, could be developed bySupDocs and/or NTIS, have an apparentlybroad demand, and could be sold in both on-line and CD-ROM formats. SupDocs wouldneed to determine if electronic format productscould be produced and sold at an acceptableprice. For example, most depository library re-spondents to the GAO survey indicated thatthey would be willing to pay no more than $49per hour online and $199 per CD-ROM for ac-cess to a governmentwide index. However,most of the associations responding indicatedthat they would be willing to pay no more than$24 per hour online and $19 per CD-ROM. OTAhas not done a detailed analysis of this data,but $24 per hour online is in line with non-profitrates for similar information products. And $19(or less) per CD-ROM is realistic at productionvolumes of over 1,000 or so disks. If the index

100

on CD-ROM were distributed to depositorylibraries, this would guarantee a base volumeof about 1,400 disks. Initial demand for a CD-ROM index product could easily be in the sev-eral thousands, based on the GAO survey re-sponse. Again, since the index informationwould not be copyrightable, and assuming theelectronic master tape (or the equivalent) wouldbe available for purchase, private companiescould put the index up as a file on DIALOGand similar value-added database services, andeven could add value and sell an enhanced CD-ROM product.

In general, CD-ROM products can be pro-duced at low unit costs at volumes over 500to 1,000 disks. Thus, there would likely be agrowing number of opportunities for SupDocsto “ride” the order for production of agencyCD-ROMs, where a sufficient market exists,just as SupDocs now rides the agency ordersfor printed ink-on-paper products. Presuma-bly, the mastering and duplications of CD-ROMS would be contracted out to the privatesector, by either the agency or GPO, at leastuntil such time that inhouse government ca-pability might be more cost-effective.

As for other formats, the market for mag-netic tapes is probably not going to be largein the forseeable future, due to the need to havea mainframe or minicomputer and relatedperipheral equipment. Major customers arelikely to continue to be the value-added ven-dors and scientific or research organizations.Government experience to date (at GPO andvarious agencies) is that sales in the hundredsof copies per year are considered good. Simi-larly, sales of floppy disks to date by NTISand various agencies have been minimal.Floppy disks can be produced at only $1 to $5dollars per unit, compared to about $100 to$200 for magnetic tapes (depending on bit den-sity). Also, floppy disks can run on the increas-ingly commonplace microcomputers. Thus, thepotential market for floppy disks would appearto be large compared to magnetic tapes. How-ever, detailed market analyses are needed toestablish reliable estimates.

Perhaps the most difficult format for Sup-Docs could be online. Whereas SupDocs couldride the agency orders for CD-ROMs, magnetictapes, and floppy disks, regardless of whereand by whom the copies were produced, it ishard to conceptualize riding an online data-base. It seems unlikely that, as a general rule,agencies and SupDocs would be offering thesame online databases. SupDocs could offeragency online databases at agency discretion,or could offer a gateway to agency databases.Also, SupDocs could contract with a privatecommercial (or non-profit) gateway service.Further, private gateway or value-added data-base companies could contract directly withindividual agencies and/or purchase the mag-netic tapes, as some do today.

On the other hand, SupDocs could serve asthe primary Federal outlet for online accessto key governmental process information itemssuch as the Congtessiona.1 Record and FederalRe~”ster. These kinds of items are all wellsuited to online format because the informa-tion is frequently time sensitive and of selec-tive interest. That is, many users are not in-terested in reading these documents cover tocover at their leisure, but, instead, want toquickly search for and retrieve information onselected topics of interest. The GAO surveyresults suggest that there would be broad de-mand for these items if priced below $24 perhour. Since items such as the Record and Reg-ister are bought by vendors in magnetic tapeformat from SupDocs and then put online andsold at a significant mark-up, it seems plausi-ble that SupDocs could itself offer these itemsonline at a competitive price. SupDocs could,of course, itself contract with a private gate-way or database vendor. SupDocs offeringswould not necessarily have any significant im-pact on private services, since the marketsserved may be quite different. Again, detailedfeasibility and marketing studies would beneeded.

Overall, the development of a rational andworkable plan for SupDocs sales of electronicformats would require close consultation and

101

coordination with mission agencies and espe-cially those agencies that already have clear-inghouse or gateway functions for electronicformats, such as NTIS and NLM. NTIS cur-rently serves as a clearinghouse for someagency floppy disk and magnetic tape prod-ucts, and NLM currently offers several agencyonline database services. For paper formats,SupDocs has included in the sales program pri-marily items judged to have significant de-mand, given the economics of traditional print-ing which penalizes small press runs and giventhe need to spread overhead, processing, andmarketing costs over as large a sales volumeas possible. However, somle electronic formatscould be economically viable at much lowersales volumes. To the extent SupDocs mightseek to include low demand and perhaps evenprinting-on-demand items in the sales pro-gram, then SupDocs would be taking on NTIS-like functions. This would intensify the needto consider SupDocs-NTIS relationships, aswill be discussed in chapter 5 and 12 in moredetail.

Staffing

GPO faces two major challenges with respectto staffing: retaining the necessary skilled la-bor force to maintain traditional printing serv-ices at a level commensurate with demand, andobtaining personnel with the new skills neededto implement GPO’s future role in electronicpublishing and electronic information dissem-ination, however that role may be defined.

As noted earlier, GPO has a relatively oldlabor force, with about thirteen percent of allcurrent employees eligible for retirement (andup to 25+ percent in some key areas). Witha natural attrition rate of 5-10 percent (retire-ments and quits), GPO has considerable flexi-bility to reshape the labor force to match fu-ture needs. About 80 percent of the GPO laborforce is unionized and works under collectivebargaining agreements. The twenty union bar-gaining units and the approximate number ofemployees in each are listed in Table 4-34.

Table 4-34.—GPO Union Bargaining Units,as of April 1987

Number ofBargaining unit employeesAmerican Federation of Government

Employees (AFGE) Local 2876/PrintingCrafts Joint Council (Main Plant WhiteCollar Workers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .

Washington Federal Printing Workers’ Union(Member of GCIU see below) Local 713-S(Printing plant workers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Columbia Typographical Union Local 101(2 units, Composers and Rapid ResponseCenter). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Graphic Communications International Union(GCIU) Local 4-B (2 units, Bookbinders andand Journeymen Bindery) . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Washington Printing and GraphicCommunications Union (member of GCIU)Local 1-C (2 units, Pressmen and MasonryWorkers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GCIU Local 285 (Offset Strippers) . . . . . . . . . .

Washington Government Photo Offset Union(member of GCIU) Local 538-C (OffsetPlatemaker Strippers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 3392 (Pueblo DistributionCenter). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers (IBEW) Local 121 (Electricians andSanitary Engineers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 2738 (Police) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 1248 (Denver Printing Plant) . . . .

International Association of MachinistsLocal 2135 (Machinists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 1292 (Chicago Printing Plant) . . .

Sheetmetal Workers’ International UnionLocal 100 (Sheet Metal Workers and PipeFitters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

United Brotherhood of Carpenters andJoiners of American, Local 2456(Carpenters) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 2618 (New York Printing Plant).Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades,

Local 1632 (Painters). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,327

1,020

672

247

232

138

69

67

65

62

42

36

27

21

17

14

9

4,065aNumber of employees represented by their Union, nOt al I emplOyees represented

are union members

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice, 1988

Collective bargaining has been able to accomm-odate major changes in the size and job struc-

ture of the GPO labor force over the past fifteenyears, responding in large part to technologicalchange in composition, prepress, and press tech-

102

nology. Collective bargaining should be able toaccommodate future changes, so long as laborand management work closely together and bar-gain in good faith.

At the moment, one possible impediment tosuccessful labor-management relations, aspointed out by OTA’S independent labor con-sultant, is the absence of a clear strategic vi-sion of GPO’s future role. The lack of a clearvision not only contributes to employee uncer-tainty, but makes staffing decisions difficult.It seems likely that, absent major changes inGPO’s traditional printing role as discussedearlier, GPO should be able to continue its pol-icy of no involuntary reductions in force (gov-erned by a May 1982 resolution of the JointCommittee on Printing). Any reductions in thetraditional labor force should be able to be han-dled through retirements and reassignments.It also seems likely that, if GPO pursues a sig-nificant role in electronic publishing and dis-semination, GPO would need to bring in newskills from outside. While some existing per-sonnel undoubtedly could be retrained for newjobs involving electronic processes and for-mats, as has been done in the past, some newpersonnel with advanced engineering, techni-cal, and marketing education and experiencewould be required. The exact skills mix ofretrained personnel and new hires cannot bedetermined in the absence of an overall stra-tegic plan.

Capital InvestmentAnother important element of GPO’s over-

all strategic plan would be capital investmentalternatives. Again, a detailed capital invest-ment program would require a well developedstrategic plan. Short of that, it would seem pru-dent for GPO to reevaluate carefully its capi-tal investment plans in light of possible ad-justments to traditional printing services andpossible new initiatives in electronic publish-ing and dissemination.

As discussed earlier, GPO has already sub-stantially updated its main plant press andbindery equipment. The major outstandingitem is the pending purchase of two new web

off set presses for the printing of the Cozzgres-sional Record and Federal Register at an esti-mated cost of about $10.5 million for the twounits. OTA’S independent printing consultantendorsed this capital investment on thegrounds of improved efficiency and produc-tivity. However, GPO’s rationale for this in-vestment presumes that traditional printingof the Record and Re~”ster will continue forat least 10 years substantially unchanged fromtoday. As noted earlier, the Record and Reg-ister are well suited to online and offline elec-tronic formats for which there is growing de-mand. Should Congress decide to make thesepublications available online and through CD-ROMS issued periodically to the legislativebranch and depository libraries and on a salesbasis via SupDocs, then it is conceivable thatthe paper format versions of the Record andReg”ster could be reduced significantly in a fewyears. Indeed, the volume of paper copies couldbe reduced to the point where the large weboffset presses would no longer be cost-effective.For example, even if paper copies were still pro-vided to every Member, committee, and officeof Congress, every depository library, mem-bers of the press, high-level executive officials,and Federal and State archival agencies, therequired press run of several thousand copiescould be uneconomical for the large presses.

GPO notes that a change of this magnitudewould conflict with current provisions of Ti-tle 44 that require the printing and distribu-tion of specified numbers of the Record andRegister. However, electronic formats couldbe provided first as a complement to paper andeventually, after a transition period, as a sub-stitute, and Congress could amend Title 44 ifnecessary. GPO also notes that any excess ca-pacity on the two new web offset presses couldbe used to absorb workloads from other, olderequipment, and to facilitate a gradual phaseoutof some of that equipment. In addition, the newpresses would be less labor intensive and wouldbe technologically up-to-date. GPO and Con-gress need to carefully evaluate whether, evenif electronic formats are encouraged or re-quired, the remaining volume of paper copiesis sufficient to justify use of the large web off-

103

set presses or, if not, whether the other advan-tages noted above would by themselves becompelling.

Future capital investment in the prepress,press, and bindery areas should also reflect anydecisions on changing the work load distribu-tion at the GPO main plant. The main plantcarries out a much more diverse range of print-ing work than almost all private printing com-panies. GPO could consider some greater de-gree of specialization in order to help reduceindirect labor and overhead costs. (The fiscalyear 1986 cost allocation for the main plantproduction department was about 31 percentdirect labor, 34 percent section burden [indirectlabor, materials, etc.], 28 percent overhead[general management and staff, utilities, rent,etc.], 2 percent depreciation, and 5 percentother [supplies, maintenance, etc.]). Presuma-bly future capital investments would be madeprimarily in those areas designated as GPOspecialities. Also, the shift to electronic for-mats for the Record and Re~”ster could fur-ther reduce indirect labor and general overheadsince the overnight main plant operationscould be scaled back although not eliminated,due to the continuing need for input to and cre-ation of the online databases by the next day.

With respect to composition equipment,OTA’S independent printing consultant con-cluded that GPO’s current equipment is stronglycompetitive with private industry. GPO uses anATEX minicomputer-based text editing sys-tem and Videocomp and Comp80 phototype-setters. As with press and bindery, the com-position equipment has been substantiallyupdated over the past decade, as highlightedin Table 4-35.

One area where GPO is not competitive ishigh-end electronic publishing equipment. TheATEX system is designed to handle large textfiles and is not well suited for smaller andspecialty jobs involving complex layouts,graphics, and the like. To help meet this need,GPO established an Electronic Job Sectionequipped with Compugraphic and Bedfordelectronic publishing systems, among otherequipment. The Bedford system, although twoyears old, is rarely used and is essentially ob-

Table 4-35.—Selected GPO Electronic CompositionEquipment, a Fiscal Year 1987

NumberEquipment of units Year(s) acquiredPersonal computers . . . . . . . . . . 12 1984-1987Video display terminals ., . . . . . 160 1978-1987Multi processor control

system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1983-1987PDP 11-44 minicomputer . . . . . . 2 1981,1985Floppy disk reader . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1985Text editing systems (ATEX) . . . 16 1978-1987Text editing system

(Videocomp) . . . . ... . . . . . . 1 1986Photocomposers (Videocomp,

Comp 80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1976-1981.-aEXcludes Electronic Job Sect Ion

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice, 1988

solete. The Compugraphic system is used forfully processing about 60 percent of the workdone in this section, and is used for partially

processing (in conjunction with ATEX or othersystems) another 35 percent of the work. Whileperformance of the Compugraphic appears tobe satisfactory, the now 3-year old system isobviously not state-of-the-art.

In essence, GPO’s capital investment strat-egy depends in part on whether GPO strives for(or is directed to take) a leaders~p role in elec-tronic publishing technology. An effective leader-ship role probably requhes a heatier investmentin state-of-the-art technology, partly to learnabout the technology for GPO’s own purposesbut, equally important, to also at least stayabreast of the mission agencies, some of which,at this point in time, are well ahead of GPO. Forexample, GPO has no significant activityunderway in optical disk or compact disk tech-nologies and expert information retrieval sys-tems, and is behind the state-of-the-art in high-end electronic publishing work stations andsoftware, all of which are under active testingor actually being implemented by variousagencies.

With respect to the provision of online data-bases, GPO would need to decide whether ex-isting computer capability would be adequateand, if not, whether to purchase or lease acicii-tional capability or whether to, at least ini-tially, utilize the services of private sectorvalue-added gateway carriers and databaseproviders. For example, if SupDocs decided to

sell the Congressional Record online, the Rec-ord could be established as a file on The Source,CompuServe, Easylink, and/or DIALOG. Thiswould minimize GPO’s capital investment re-quirements until experience with actual de-mand levels and patterns could be analyzed.Alternatively, or in addition, the online Rec-ord could be set up as a file on NLM’s MED-LARS, on the gateway system operated by theDefense Technical Information Center, andloron the library community’s various networks.There are numerous possibilities, especially forkey governmental process information such asthe Record and Reg”ster. Eventually, SupDocsonline information products could be made

available via the FTS-2000, when implemented,and could make use of advanced satellite andfiber optic transmission technologies embeddedin FTS-2000 and various commercial telecom-munication systems.

In an era of constrained resources, GPO mayhave to make some difficult choices betweeninvestment in traditional versus electronicpublishing technology, and between capital in-vestment versus the training and recruitmentof personnel to apply the technology. Thesedecisions are best made within an overall stra-tegic framework.

—

Chapter 5

An Electronic National TechnicalInformation Service andNTIS/Superintendent ofDocuments Cooperation

- -

Clockwise from top left: NTIS staff searching the NTIS database for a customer; NTIS staff “blowing back” from microficheto produce a paper copy of a technical report; NTIS staff reproducing additional shelf stock; and NTIS staff pulling an

archive document from the NTIS collection (photo credits: National Technical Information Service).

.

CONTENTSPage

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................107Role and Current Status of NTIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............108Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....111

Trends in Demand and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...111Possible New Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........116

NTIS/SupDocs Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .........119Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................119Disadvantages and Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....121

TablesTable Page

5-1. Source of NTIS Reports, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1085-2,5-34

5-4.5-5.5-6.

5“7.5-8,

5-9.5“10.

Distribution of NTIS Sales, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1o9NTIS Revenues and Costs, Fiscal Years 1980-87 . ................112Demand for Selected Major NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980-87. ..112Demand for Selected Minor NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1983-87. ..113Average Per Unit Prices for Selected Major NTIS ProductsCompared to Inflation Rate, Fiscal Years 1980-87 . ...............113NTIS Revenues by Product Group, Fiscal Years 1986-87 . .........113Federal Agency Evaluation of the Cost of NTIS Reports, Paper andMicrofiche Formats, 114 Agency Components Responding . ........114Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS, Fiscal Years 1983-87 .. ...,114Federal Civilian Agency Dissemination of Scientific andTechnical Informa~ion ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................115

5-11. Scientific and Technical Association Use of Federal InformationSources, Rank Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........115

5-12. Demand for NTIS Documents Announced in Calendar Year 1986 ...1165-13.AgeofNTIS Documents Sold in Calendar Year 1986 . ...........,1165-14. SupDocs Sales and Distribution Activity, Fiscal Years 1981-8’7 .. ...1225-15. Conventional Printing Functions Affected by Length of Press Run. ,1235-16. Estimated Page Length and Content of Government Documents. . ..123

Chapter 5

An Electronic National TechnicalInformation Service andNTIS/Superintendent ofDocuments Cooperation

SUMMARYThis chapter discusses the current status of

and future prospects for the National Techni-cal Information Service (NTIS), and opportu-nities for cooperation between NTIS andGPO’s Superintendent of Documents (Sup-Docs). The debate over the privatization ofNTIS is discussed in chapters 11 and 12. Thediscussion in this chapter assumes that thisdebate will be resolved by Congress in favorof retaining NTIS within the Federal Govern-ment— as a separate agency or government cor-poration within the Department of Commerceor consolidated with SupDocs or even with theLibrary of Congress. The major challenge fac-ing Congress is defining a viable role for NTISin the future. A variety of indicators stronglysuggest that the current role may not be sus-tainable absent some significant changes.

NTIS operates in a highly constrained envi-ronment, characterized by ambivalent supportfrom the executive branch, limited financialresources, mixed support from the informationindustry, limited technical resources, and a dif-ficult product mix (many low volume items).In addition, the basic demand for NTIS prod-ucts appears to be significantly eroding. MostNTIS users and client agencies believe inthe NTIS concept and seek to find ways tostrengthen NTIS or at least the core NTISfunctions as a continuing element of the Fed-eral Government.

NTIS appears to be ideally suited for the im-plementation of an electronic document system(with multi-format output—paper, microfiche, orelectronic), regardless of organizational location.NTIS could use aversion of the Defense Tech-nical Information Center (DTIC) system as aprototype. An electronic document systemcould help revitalize NTIS if coupled with im-proved agency participation. Overall, an elec-tronic NTIS should be able to increase the

diversity and timeliness of NTIS (and relatedprivate vendor) offerings, increase the abilityof NTIS (and private vendors) to match infor-mation products with potential users, and re-duce the cost of NTIS products. An electronicNTIS should be better able to serve all users,but especially small and medium businessesand individual researchers.

NTIS/SupDocs cooperation could create newopportunities for improvements in the index-ing, marketing, and international exchange ofFederal information. NTIS/SupDocs cooper-ation could be synergistic with respect to im-plementing an electronic document systemthat would meet NTIS needs plus a broaden-ing of the SupDocs product line to includeselected low demand items. The NTIS/Sup-Docs combined low-demand sales volume couldhelp justify investment in the necessary equip-ment, which could be funded out of the GPOrevolving fund and/or NTIS retained earnings(if authorized) and charged back as deprecia-tion. NTIS/SupDocs cooperative initiativeswould need to be sensitive to concerns aboutseparation of powers between the executiveand legislative branches, and about thestrengthening of government wide dissemina-tion mechanisms at the possible expense of de-centralized agency activities.

Regardless of the ultimate institutional struc-ture, there are significant opportunities for im-provement in both NTIS and SupDocs productline analyses, development, and marketing.Strengthened cooperation between NTIS andSupDocs would not only help identify mutuallyadvantageous joint activities, but would seemalmost mandatory to the extent that both agen-cies pursue sales of electronic format productsand that SupDocs enters the low-demandmarket. 107

108

ROLE AND CURRENT STATUS OF NTIS

The primary role of NTIS is to serve as acentral governmentwide source of scientificand technical reports describing research per-formed by Federal agencies, contractors, andgrantees. NTIS depends on the voluntary sub-mission of these reports by the Federal agen-cies. NTIS maintains a permanent archive ofthese reports, establishes bibliographic controlover these materials, prepares various indexand abstract materials, and sells copies of thereports. In recent years, NTIS has increasedits collection to include additional reports pre-pared by state and local governments and byforeign government research organizations,and to include Federal databases and software.

In addition to the basic archival and clearing-house functions, NTIS is responsible for:

the Federal Research in Progress (FEDRIP)Program that provides informationdescribing on-going Federally funded re-search projects;the Center for the Utilization of FederalTechnology (CUFT);acquisition and licensing of government-owned patents;provision of production and billing/collec-tion services for information dissemina-tion activities of other Federal agencies;andprovision and processing of FOIA re-quests for agency materi~s placed on fileat NTIS.

This discussion focuses primarily on the NTISarchival, clearinghouse, and disseminationfunctions.

As of fiscal year 1987, the NTIS archive in-cluded close to 2 million reports and over 2,500data and software files. About 60,000 to 70,000new items are added each year. About half ofthe NTIS reports originate from just threeagencies: the Department of Defense (DefenseTechnical Information Center (DTIC)), the De-partment of Energy (DOE) (primarily the DOEOffice of Scientific and Technical Information(OSTI)), and National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) (primarily the NASA

Table 5“1 .—Source of NTIS Reports, Fiscal Year 1987

Agency Percent of total

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4All other Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 20Non-Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Foreign countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ;

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100SOURCE: National Technical Information Service, 1988

Scientific and Technical Information Facility(STIF)). The percentage distribution is shownin Table 5-1.

NTIS operates under several constraints.One is the variable and limited funding com-mitment of the government to NTIS. NTISbegan in 1945 as the Publication Board. ThePublication Board was established by Execu-tive Order 9568, which charged the Board withreviewing all government-generated scientificand technical documents and determiningwhat could be released to the public. Execu-tive Order 9604 expanded the Board’s respon-sibilities to include scientific and technical doc-uments captured from the enemy during andat the end of World War II. The Board’s ob-jectives were to organize declassified informa-tion so as to permit researchers, and especiallyindustry, fast and easy access to information,and to notify the public ‘and industry aboutwhat was available. The intent was to promoteeconomic growth and development through therapid dissemination of scientific and techni-cal information.

Since established, questions have been raisedconcerning the appropriate functions and fund-ing for NTIS. The Publications Board becamepart of the Office of Declassification and Tech-nical Services (OTS) in late 1945, the Officeof Technical Services in 1946, the OTS Clear-inghouse in 1950, the Clearinghouse for Fed-eral Scientific and Technical Information in1964, and NTIS in 1970. The history of NTIShas reflected uncertainty on the part of theFederal Government as to the appropriate Fed-eral commitment to a central clearinghouse for

109

dissemination of scientific and technical infor-mation, the role of the clearinghouse vis-a-visthe Federal science agencies and the privatesector, and the appropriate pricing of suchclearinghouse services.

In general, representatives of the scientificand technical community believe that the costof such clearinghouse services is a very smallprice to pay compared to the substantial Fed-eral investment in research and development.To place this in perspective, the fiscal year 1987NTIS revenues and costs were about $22 mil-lion each (breakeven operation) compared tothe fiscal year 1987 Federal research and de-velopment budget of about $59 billion. Exclud-ing defense R&D, the NTIS operating budgetof $22 million represents about one one-thousandth of the civilian R&D budget ($21.5billion in fiscal year 1987). Advocates of astrong Federal role in dissemination of scien-tific and technical information argue that thelevel of Federal support is far too small. Othersbelieve that, while a Federal role is needed, itshould be limited in terms of functions andbudget.

The result is that NTIS receives no appro-priated funds for its basic archival andclearinghouse functions, with costs covered bysales of documents and services. NTIS doesnot have a working capital revolving fund. Asa consequence, since any net revenues mustbe returned to the U.S. Treasury, it has provendifficult for NTIS to obtain up-to-date equip-ment—especially modern information tech-nology.

A second major constraint is that NTIS hasa voluntary relationship with the source agen-cies and cannot require agencies to submit ma-terials. NTIS estimates that more than one-third of Federal scientific and technical reportsare never submitted. There is also concern thatagencies may delay submission of key reportsand/or submit primarily reports with less per-ceived interest or demand. NTIS functions, forthe most part, as a secondary distributor ofFederal scientific and technical information.The key Federal science agencies, such as DoD,DOE, and NASA, have their own mechanisms

for direct dissemination of reports to agencypersonnel and contractors. NTIS then makessecondary distribution to the business commu-nity and general public. In addition, the GPOSupDocs includes some scientific and techni-cal reports in the SupDocs sales program.NTIS includes some GPO titles in the NTISclearinghouse. However, the overlap is thoughtto be small, since SupDocs selects titles basedon significant market potential (projected salesof several hundreds to thousands of copies),whereas almost all NTIS includes titles are in-cluded regardless of demand, which is gener-ally very small (an average sales of 10 copiesper title). In sum, NTIS must achieve break-even operations working with a substantiallyincomplete collection of reports that sell veryfew copies on the average. This is a difficultchallenge.

A third major constraint is a complex rela-tionship with the private sector and the infor-mation industry in particular. On the one hand,NTIS was established to help serve the scien-tific and technical information needs of busi-ness and industry. NTIS estimates that about75 percent of its business customers are smallfirms, with major corporations accounting forthe other 25 percent of business customers.Overall, the U.S. business community accountsfor about two-thirds of NTIS sales, as shownin Table 5-2.

The information industry appears to be gen-erally comfortable with the NTIS archivalfunction and clearinghouse activities with re-spect to dissemination of paper and microfichecopies. However, NTIS initiatives with respect

Table 5.2.— Distribution of NTIS Sales,Fiscal Year 1987

Percent ofNTIS sales,

Customer fiscal year 1987U.S. business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Foreign (business and government) . . . . . . 20U.S. Federal and State government . . . . . . 6Academic researchers/institutions and

public libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6General public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 100SOURCE. National Techn!cal Information Servtce, 1988

110

to direct electronic dissemination of documentsand derived products (e.g., indices, abstracts,searches) are perceived by NTIS as meetingresistance from the information industry. Therecord of debate over NTIS privatization sug-gests a basis for this concern, although theviews of industry are varied and complex. Asa matter of practice, NTIS depends on the pri-vate sector for dissemination of online prod-ucts (such as the NTIS Bibliographic Databaseavailable via DIALOG, BRS, and the like).NTIS estimates that private sector revenuesderived from adding value to or re-marketingNTIS products totals about $11-12 million an-nually. NTIS reliance on the private sector forelectronic and/or enhanced dissemination hashad the perhaps unintended effect of discouragi-ng NTIS from aggressively pursuing how elec-tronic technology might improve even theNTIS core archival and clearinghouse func-tions. Improvements here could benefit bothNTIS customers served directly by NTIS andthose served indirectly via private sectorvendors.

There is also an equity issue involved con-cerning access to the online NTIS Biblio-graphic Database and other online products.Some customers, and especially small busi-nesses, independent researchers, and the gen-eral public, may not be able to afford the com-mercial rates (which can typically range from$50 per online hour and up). Since onlinesearching of the NTIS database offers signifi-cant advantages, these customers could be dis-advantaged in terms of their ability to effec-tively access and retrieve Federally fundedscientific and technical reports.

In sum, NTIS presently operates in a con-strained environment, characterized by ambiva-lent support from the government, limited finan-cial resources (no public appropriation for thecore clearinghouse and archival operations),mixed support from the information industry,limited technical resources, and a difficult prod-uct mix (many low volume items). In addition,the basic demand for NTIS products appears tobe significantly eroding, thereby placing in con-siderable jeopardy the overall viability of NTISas it is presently operating. At the same time,

most NTIS users and client agencies believe inthe NTIS concept and seek to find ways tostrengthen NTIS or at least the core NTIS func-tions as a continuing element of the Federal Gov-ernment.

The record of the NTIS privatization debateprovides ample evidence of support for theNTIS concept. For example, in response to anApril 1986 request for public comment, ’NTIS received 138 written responses from ex-ecutive agencies, the legislative branch, the in-formation industry, and individuals or orga-nizations that used NTIS.2 Review of theresponses, by NTIS3 and OTA, indicatesthat:

●

●

●

The NTIS user community overwhelrningopposed privatization, supported NTIS asa government entity, and testified to theimportance of scientific and technical in-formation available from NTIS. The usercommunity was heavily represented by li-brary associations and individual univer-sity, public, and technical libraries.The Federal agencies which supply thesource documents to NTIS opposedprivatization, cited numerous problemsthat could or would result if NTIS werenot a government entity, and emphasizedtheir reliance on NTIS clearinghouse andarchival functions.The information industry and individualcompany representatives overwhelmingopposed privatization of the core NTISfunctions on the grounds that these func-tions were not appropriate for the privatesector and/or would create unfair competi-tive conditions. However, industry andcompany representatives strongly favoredprivatization of various dissemination andvalue-added functions.

‘U.S. Department of Commerce, “Study of Alternatives forPrivatizing the National Technical Information Service”, No-tice and request for public comment, Federal Register, vol. M,No, 81, Apr. 28, 1986, pp. 15868-15870.

2U s Department of Commerce, NTIS Privatization StUdY Re-. .sponses to April 28, 1986 Federal Register Notice Request forPub]ic Comment, PB86-21 1240, National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia, June 1986.

3U s Department of Commerce, National Technical Informa-. ,tion Service, “Analysis of Comments to Federal Register No-tice”, prepared by NTIS staff, 1986,

.

111

These general positions were reaffirmed atcongressional hearings held in July 1987 andFebruary 1988 by the House Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology, Subcommitteeon Science, Research, and Technology. At thelatter hearing, the Subcommittee chairman re-leased a letter from the Information IndustryAssociation stating its position that “the Ad-ministration’s proposal to privatize NTIS isnot in the public interest in that it will ulti-mately reduce the availability of Federallyfunded scientific and technical information.

Overall, the years-long debate over privati-zation of NTIS has further constrained the abil-ity of NTIS to take initiatives, and has divertedsubstantial NTIS and Department of Commerceresources (primarily staff time and attention).Members of Congress and public witnesses havecriticized the Administration for prolonging thedebate when congressional sentiment againstprivatization is clear. In a February 23, 1988letter, the Chairman and Ranking MinorityMembers of the House Committee on Science,Space, and Technology and Senate Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transportationwrote the Secretary of Commerce and re-quested delay in the privatization of NTISactivities until Congress completed legislativeactions

~l~~tt~~ tO Hon. Doug wal~ren, Chairman, Subcommittee ‘n

Science, Research, and Technology, House Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology, from Kenneth E. Allen, SeniorVice President, Information Industry Association, Feb. 12, 1988.

5Letter to Hon. C. William Verity, Secretary of Commerce,from Hon. Ernest F. Hollings, John C. Danforth, Robert A. Roe,and Manuel Lujan, Jr., U.S. Congress, Feb. 23, 1988.

In a March 3, 1988 letter, the Chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Science, Research, Tech-nology, and Space sought the views of the Sec-retary of Commerce on legislation to establisha National Technical Information Corp. TheChairman advised that “[i]t is clear tome thatprivatization of NTIS will not occur in the nearfuture . . . To engage in a protracted NTISprivatization argument would be less thanproductive. I would much prefer to look beyondthe privatization controversy to implement-ing everyone’s underlying goal of transform-ing NTIS into a modern, low-cost deliverer ofscientific and technical documents.”~ Con-gressional and agency officials, as well as pub-lic witnesses, have concluded that the drivefor NTIS privatization was not based on a bal-anced analysis and finding of clear net bene-fits, and furthermore that the Administrationdid not have the capacity to successfully im-plement the NTIS privatization plans, even ifthought to be desirable.~ (For further discus-sion, see chs. 11 and 12 on policy issues andimplications.)

6Letter to Hon. C. William Verity, Secretary of Commerce,from Hon. Doug Walgren, Chairman, Subcommittee on Scien(:e,Research, and Technology, House Committee on Science, Space,and Technology, Mar. 3, 1988.

‘See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technol-ogy, National Technical Information Serl’ice, Hearing, IC)Oth Con-gress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-ton, D. C., Feb. 24, 1988, Also see A.S. Levine, “Legal FinancialWoes Hamper NTIS P]an ”, Federal Computer Week, May 2, 1988,PP. 15-16.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

The major challenge facing NTIS is defin- major NTIS products and services. As showning a viable role for its future. A variety of in- in Table 5-3, NTIS appears to have had adicators strongly suggest that the current role healthy total revenue and cost performance inmay not be sustainable absent some signifi- recent years, with net revenues realized in fis-cant changes. cal years 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1987, and

Trends in Demand and Revenuesnet losses experienced in fiscal years 1982 and1985. For the entire eight year period, NTIS

The starting point for this analysis is the his- realized net revenues of $4.6 million or abouttorical trend in demand for (and sales of) the 2.8 percent of total sales.

112

Table 5.3.—NTIS Revenues and Costs, Fiscal Years 1980.87

Total revenues Total costs Net revenues or loss

Fiscal year $ millions $ millions $ millions Percent

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18.621.319.421.420.721.322.422.3

167.4

17.818.619.820.420.422.121.622.1

162.8

0.8

(:::)a1.0

( N )0.80.2

4.6

4.312.7(2.1)4.71.5

(3.8)3.60,9

2.8aParentheses Indicate net loss

SOURCE National Technical information Service, 1988

However, a detailed analysis by major NTISproduct line reveals a much different picture.Sales of all major NTIS products have declinedmarkedly since 1980, inmost cases by about50 percent. For example, sales of paper copiesdropped from752,000copiesin fiscal year1980to 393,000 copies in fiscal year 1987. Sales ofmicrofiche copies dedined from 155,000 copiesin fiscal year 1980 t0 67,000 in fiscal year1987.This pattern is repeated throughout the NTISproduct line, as shown in Table 5-4.

Overall, sales of the abovesevenmajor NTISproducts collectively declined from about3.69million units (copies or subscriptions) in fiscalyear 1980 t oabout 1.82 million units in fiscalyear 1987, a net declineof51 percent. Are-view of all other NTIS products indicated thatsales increased only for CUFT publications,data tapes, and data diskettes, but these itemsaccount for a small percentage of total NTISsales. Trends in these three items and for soft-ware tapes and catalogs (which declined) areshown in Table 5-5.

An obvious question is how could NTIS main-tain a breakeven operation with slightly in-creased revenues (in current dollars) over thefiscal year 1980-87 period, given the large re-duction in product sales? Part of the answeris that NTIS per unit prices increased signifi-cantly over this same period of time, and withnet price increases that typically equalled orexceeded the rate of inflation. For example,while paper copy sales decreased by about 50percent, the average per unit price for papercopies increased by 70 percent over the 1980-87 period while inflation averaged 45 percent.Thus, in the case of paper copies, net revenuesactually increased despite the drop in demand.This general pattern holds for all of the majorNTIS products, as illustrated in Table 5-6.

In addition to maintaininggrevenues throughincreased prices despite declining demand,NTIS augmented sales revenues through:

s services to other agencies (such as orderbilling and processing),

Table 5-4.—Demand for Selected Major NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980-87

Demand by fiscal year Net changeProduct 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Number Percent

On th~:;ands of copies)Paper copy demand . . . . . . . 752 676 550 493 457 451 393 –359 –48Microf iche copy demand 155 154 134 120 121 101 85 67 –88 –57

(in millions of copies)Selected research in

microfiche (SRIM) . . . . . . . . 2.72 2.74 2.48 2.37 2,34 1.94 1.78 1.33 – 1.39 –51

(in thousands of subscriptions)Government research

announcements and index 2.22 2.01 1.85 1.61 1.49 1.38 1.25 1,15 – 1,97 –48Annual index ... . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.84 0.96 0.82 0,73 0.63 0.61 0.50 –0.41 –41Abstract newsletters . . . . . . 16.0 14.0 12.5 12,2 11,0 10.4 8.6 6.8 –9.2 –58Published searches, ... .33.9 41.0 32.7 28.9 27.7 31.0 26.8 21.2 – 12.7 –38SOURCE National Techn!cal Information Service, 1968.

113

Table 5-5.— Demand for Selected Minor NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1983-87

Demand by fiscal year (number of copies) Net change

Product 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Number Percent

CUFT publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NA 4,227 5,412 6,577 5,552 + 1,325 +31Software tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524 586 537 638 380 – 144 –28Data tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,405 1,783 2,174 2,493 2,503 +1,098 +78Data diskettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NA NA 100 179 338 +238 +238Software catalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,064 648 3,486 1,622 969 –1,095 –53NOTE NA=not available

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

Table 5-6.—Average Per Unit Prices for Selected Major NTIS Products Compared to Inflation Rate,Fiscal Years 1980.87

Fiscal year 1980 Fiscal year 1987 Net change InflationProduct per unit price per unit price Dollars Percent rate

Average price per copyPaper copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.50 $27.87 $11.37 +690/o +450/0Microfiche copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 6.50 3.00 +86 +45Selected research in microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,85 1.25 0.40 +47 +45

Average price per subscriptionGovernment research announcements

and index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $275 $379 $104 +38V0 +450/0Annual index ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 479 104 +28 +45Abstract newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 89 27 +44 +45Published searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 45 15 +50 +45SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

● sales ofcomputer-relatedproducts (whichhaveahigh averageperunit price, about~$67 per unit comparedto $28 for paperand$6.50 for microfiche, asoffiscalyear1987~ and

● NTIS brokerage fees on sales of otheragency materials.

Infiscalyear 1987 these three itemstogetheraccounted foroveraquarter oftotalNTlSrev-enues. The fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 1987revenue breakouts are shown in Table 5-7.

The comparison between fiscal year 1986 andfiscal year 1987 revenue data shows how NTIShas offset revenue decreases in full text reportsand subscription, bibliographic, and announce-ment products with revenue increases in com-puter products and services to other agencies.

Whether and how long NTIS can be expectedto remain viable operating on this basis re-quires examination. One risk is that continuedreductions in the sales volume of reports, sub-scriptions, bibliographies, and the like could

Table 5-7.—NTIS Revenues by Product Group, Fiscal Years 1986-87(in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year 1986 Fiscal year 1987 Net change

Product group Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars PercentFull text reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,195 50.0 10,403 46.6 – 792 –7.1Subscription, bibliographic, and

announcement products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,100 27.3 5,429 24.3 –671 – 11.0Computer products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,416 6.3 2,167 9.7 + 751 +53.0Services to other agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,811 8.1 2,451 11.0 +640 +35.0Patent licensing fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 2.8 575 2.6 –42 –6.8Brokerage fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,095 4.9 1,220 5.5 + 125 + 11.4Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 0.7 102 0.5 –45 –30.6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,381 100.1 22.347 100.2

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

114

necessitate further price increases, whichcould, in turn, further reduce sales, and so on.The elasticity of demand for NTIS productsis not precisely known. NTIS staff believe thatincreasing price is one significant factor con-tributing to the decline in sales. For example,various library officials observe that risingNTIS prices have been a major factor contrib-uting to reductions in NTIS subscriptions,especially as libraries are faced with increas-ingly tight budgets. This view is supported tosome extent by results of the GAO survey ofFederal agencies. Of the 114 civilian depart-mental components responding, 40 agencycomponents evaluated the cost of NTISreports in paper format and 27 evaluated thecost of microfiche format. Two-thirds of theagencies evaluated the costs for paper as highor very high, while two-thirds evaluated mi-crofiche cost as moderate or low, as indicatedin Table 5-8.

NTIS staff believe that online searching ofthe NTIS bibliographic database may also becontributing to a reduction in the number ofrequests for reports. The NTIS index productsoffered directly in paper or microfiche form andin electronic form via private sector vendorsmay well be improving the efficiency of cus-tomer searches of the NTIS archives, while atthe same time may be undercutting sales ofNTIS documents. The effects of online search-ing on overall NTIS demand are debatable. Theexperience with other online bibliographicdatabases has tended to be just the opposite;online searching has facilitated more aware-ness of and requests for the referenced docu-ments. This subject warrants further research

Table 5-8.—Federal Agency Evaluation of the Costof NTIS Reports, Paper and Microfiche Formats,

114 Agency Components Responding

Percent of agencies using NTIS

Cost of NTIS report Paper Microfiche

Very high . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 2 ; : ;Moderate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5 63.0Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 7.4Very low . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 —

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987,

by NTIS and the library and information sci-ence community.

Other contributing factors include decliningagency participation in the NTIS program andlimited customer awareness of NTIS products.With respect to the former, NTIS reports thatthe number of new titles provided to NTIS byFederal agencies has declined by about 20 per-cent over the fiscal year 1983-87 period, asshown in Table 5-9. Assuming that NTIS wasnot receiving one-third of relevant agency ma-terials in fiscal year 1983 (NTIS estimate), thefugitive document percentage would now beup to about 47 percent. In effect, this trendmay compromise both the perceived and realutility of the NTIS archive. NTIS may nowbe receiving only about one-half of relevantagency documents.

This conclusion is qualitatively consistentwith the results of the GAO survey of Federalagencies. Of the 72 civilian departmentalagency components disseminating scientificand technical information, only onehalf of theagencies responding use NTIS. Agencies ap-pear to rely primarily on themselves for dis-semination, secondarily on GPO, NTIS, andthe Depository Library Program (DLP), andto an even lesser extent on the private sector.The results are presented in Table 5-10.

With respect to customer awareness of NTIS,NTIS has an ongoing series of activities to in-form potential customers of NTIS services.However, the results of the GAO survey of

Table 5-9.–Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS,Fiscal Years 1983.87

Titles received Estimated percentPercent of all relevant

Fiscal year Number change agency titlesa

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,471 67.01984 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,587 60.41985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,211 59.31986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,760 58.91987 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,856 53.0Net change

(1983-87) . . . . . . –16,615 –2o.9 – 14.0a&SUmOS number Of relevm! agency titles remains constant at 11 g,000 PN yearSOURCE National Technical Information Service and Office of Technology As-

sessment, 1988.

.—.— ——. —.

115

Table 5-10.—Federal Civilian Agency Disseminationof Scientific and Technical Information

Percent ofDissemination channel agencies a

Own agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.7National Technical Information Service. . . . . 50.0Depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0Private sector vendors/contractors . . . . . . . . . . 36.1Consumer Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,2a&ult~ expressed as percentage of agencies that disseminate STI that use each

channel

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987 and Off Ice of Technology As-sessment, 1988

Federal information users suggest that, over-all, NTIS plays a rather limited role relativeto other direct and indirect sources of Federalinformation. Among other groups, GAO sur-veyed a random sample of scientific and tech-nical associations. Based on the responses of133 associations (out of 250 sampled), NTISis used by about one-third. Individual Federalagencies are used occasionally to very often,as are newspapers, news magazines, newslet-ters, and trade, professional, and scientificjournals. Compared to other governmentwideinformation dissemination mechanisms, NTISis used more often than the Consumer Infor-mation Center (CIC) or DLP, but less oftenthen GPO mail/telephone orders. While asso-ciations are perhaps not the best indicator ofNTIS customer awareness, science, environ-ment, and technology were the most frequentlycited categories of Federal information usedby the respondents. The relative ranking ofFederal information sources for these associa-tions is shown in Table 5-11.

The relatively low use of NTIS may reflecta combination of low demand for NTIS prod-ucts, low awareness of NTIS products, and/or,as mentioned earlier, high cost of NTIS prod-ucts. In addition, OTA’S independent consul-tant on university use of scientific and techni-cal information concluded that NTIS is notviewed as a source of state-of-the-art informa-tion, due to the time delays between the exis-tence of a document and its availability viaNTIS. On the other hand, the role of NTIS asa secondary source of scientific and technical

Table 5.11 .—Scientific and Technical Association Useof Federal Information Sources, Rank Order

Percent of associationsresponding that the

Source of Federal information source is usedb

1.

2.3.4.5.6.7,

8.9.

10.

11,

12.

13,14.15.16.

17.18.19,

20,21,22.

23.24.25,26,

—

Trade, professional, orscientific journals. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Newsletters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .News magazines , . . . . . . . . . . . . .Individual Federal Agencies . . . . .Radio/television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congressional agency (LOC I

GAO, OTA, CBO, CRS) . . . . . . . . .College/university library . . . . . . .GPO mail/telephone orders . . . . .Office of U.S. Senator orRepresentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State or local governmentagency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Inhouse library or informationcenter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial bookstore . . . . . . . .Congressional committee. . . . . .Local public library . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial mail/telephoneorders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal agency library. . . . . . . . . .Commercial online databasevendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .GPO bookstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .GPO depository library . . . . . . . .Commercial informationbrokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consumer Information Center . .State agency library. . . . . . . . . . . .State government library. . . . . . . .Local school (Grades 1-12)

88.982,971.968.964.153.8

50.845.844.4

43.2

42.6

39.538.737.737.5

35.830,625.2

24.823.719.8

15.412.111.27.8

library . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . 1.7aFederal sources are italicizedbAgencies repo~ing that a source of Federal !nformat!on IS used Occasionally,

often, or very often.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users 1988

documents is appreciated, especially in the li-brary community and among university re-searchers. a

“Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, Caro]yn Plumb, andPatricia Tetlin, “Perspectives on Federal Dissemination of Sci-entific and Technical Information”, OTA cent ractor report pre-pared by the program in Scientific and Technical Communica.tion, School of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,February 1988, Also see Charles R, McClure, Peter Hernon, andCarj R. Purcell, Linking the U.S. IVational Technical Informa-tion Sert’ice With Academic and Public Libraries, (Norwood,NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986); and Peter Hernon and Charles R.McClure, Federal Information Policies in the 1980s: Conflictsand Issues, INorwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing, 1987).

116

Possible New Initiatives

The nature of demand for NTIS documentsmakes NTIS highly suitable for application ofelectronic publishing and printing-on-demandsystems. As noted earlier, the average demandfor NTIS documents is 10 copies, and perhapsone-quarter of the documents never sell a sin-gle copy. As an illustration, for all documentsarchived by NTIS in calendar year 1986, therewas no demand for 43 percent, only 5 percentsold more than 10 copies, and only 1 percentsold more than 50 copies. The detailed demanddistribution is shown in Table 5-12.

In addition to very low total demand formost NTIS documents, demand for a givendocument can be spread over many years. Forexample, of the average sales of 10 copies perdocument, only 3 copies might be sold in thefirst year after announcement, 2 copies in thesecond year, 4 copies spread over the thirdthrough tenth years after announcement, andthe last copy might be sold 11 to 15 years ormore after being made available. This phenom-enon is known as the demand decay curve, andis illustrated in Table 5-13 for NTIS documentssold during calender year 1986.

This highlights the NTIS dilemma: low salesvolume spread over many years, but a documentthat sells only a single copy could contribute tosignificant innovations. While NTIS is able toidentify documents that are relevant to currenttechnical issues and research and developmentpriorities, it is difficult to predict which docu-ments will have high demand and virtuallyimpossible to predict which documents will con-

Table 5.12.—Demand for NTIS DocumentsAnnounced in Calendar Year 1986

Number of Percent of totalLevel of demand documents documents(total annual) (per demand level) announced

No demand. . . . . .1 copy . . . . . . . . . .2-5 copies . . . . . . .6-10 . . . . . . . . . . . .11-20 . . . . . . . . . . .21-50 . . . . . . . . . . .51 + . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . .

28,36410,90616,8535,5972,228

967379

65,294

431726

9311

100SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1986

Table 5-13.—Age of NTIS Documents Soldin Calender Year 1986

Percent ofDate of document Co~ies sold total

1968 and prior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,7301969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,4121970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,9311971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,4891972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,7441973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,3461974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,2781975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,9421976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,2821977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,1171978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,6601979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,5711980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,4461981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,7991982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,6151983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,3181984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,4481985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,1491986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,431Pre-announcement demanda . . . . . 2,854Announcement date unknownb . . . 37,423

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . 410,985

1.90.30.50.60.91.11.01.21.82.02.12.32.53.63.85.97.4

17.633.7

0.79! 1

100.0

aPre.announcement demand Announcement date of 1987, orders were receivedin FY 1986 due to source pre-announcement, etc , and NTIS was able to fill the

b~~~~~~cement Date IJnknown Announcement date IS not included In NTIS in.

ventory file

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

tribute to a major scientific or technical break-through. This is the primary rationale for theNTIS archive, and underpins the need to main-tain NTIS documents on file indefinitely.

Fortunately, technological advances havecreated several possibilities that appear to beideally suited to the nature of NTIS demand.First, most federally-sponsored or conductedscientific and technical reports are created onword processing or microcomputer-based sys-tems. Thus, the keystrokes are captured elec-tronically. The electronic versions of thesereports are typically converted to paper (or mi-crofiche) format by the originating agency (orthe agency contractor) and submitted to NTISas paper (or microfiche) copies. NTIS then dis-seminates copies in paper (or microfiche) in re-sponse to requests. About 80 percent of theNTIS reports are disseminated in paper for-mat and the remaining 20 percent in micro-fiche. Because demand is low, and typically for

117——...—— .—

one copy at a time, the per unit costs are high—averaging $25-30 per paper copy.

If NTIS could receive agency reports in elec-tronic format, using compatible document de-scription standards, then NTIS could applyelectronic publishing and printing-on-demandtechnology where appropriate. For example,NTIS could develop and implement a versionof the Electronic Document System similar tothat being developed by DTIC. Documentscould enter NTIS either indirect electronic for-mat (by magnetic computer tape, floppy disk,or electronic transmission, similar to GPO re-ceipt of publications material) or by scanningpaper copies. DTIC envisions the use of high-speed, high-resolution optical scanning equip-ment that will compete favorably with the cur-rent microfiche system used by DTIC. How-ever, direct electronic input should be lessexpensive than scanning for new input, at leastfor NTIS purposes. Scanning may, however,be the only option for converting old material.DTIC also envisions using high capacity, lowcost per bit digital storage systems such asthose using laser optical disks. High capacityWORM (Write Once, Read Manytimes) opti-cal disk juke boxes should be applicable to bothDTIC and NTIS. The 12-inch disks can storeabout one gigabyte of information per side, orroughly 400,000 to 500,000 pages of double-spaced typed material per side. This meansthat, assuming straight digitized text only andan average length of 200 double-spaced pagesper document, the roughly 70,000 new docu-ments received by NTIS each year could bestored on about 14 doublesided WORM opti-cal disks.~j

For output, DTIC plans to use high-speed,high resolution electronic printing equipmentfor producing paper documents on demand.Documents will be printed double-sided usingplain bond paper to reduce paper and mailingcosts. The reproduction cost should drop byan order of magnitude. The fully developedElectronic Document System permits the re-

ITOK d [)(:11 In ~!Ilt ~ i 200 j)agf;s per docunlellt = 14 millionpages divided by 1 million pages perdoubl~sided 12-inch 11’ORMdisk.

production of full copies, and facilitatesprinting-on-demand of selected pages, since thetext of documents stored on the system couldbe made available for electronic display at re-mote terminals. DTIC plans to use a standardstructured database approach known as Stand-ardized General Markup Language (SGML) tofacilitate electronic document reproduction ona fast turnaround basis.

DTIC intends to continue its present micro-fiche-based production system in parallel withthe Electronic Document System. However,as new documents are added in electronic for-mat, the use of microfiche is expected to de-cline substantially. DTIC estimates that theelectronic system will fill about 40 to 45 per-cent of paper copy requests after one year ofoperation, and about 60 to 70 percent of suchrequests after 3 years of operation. ShouldNTIS implement a similar system, NTIS couldexpect comparable results, with an estimated35 percent of requests handled with electronicprinting on demand after the first year, 60 per-cent of requests after 3 years, and perhaps 75percent of requests after 5 years. These esti-mates assume that the NTIS backfiles (ar-chival documents entered in earlier years)would be retained in microfiche, since demandis so low and the cost of conversion may notbe justified.

Should NTIS implement its version of anElectronic Document System, NTIS would bepositioned to offer search and retrieval capa-bility, directly and/or via private vendors orother government agencies. Such softwarecould build on the results, as they become avail-able, of DTIC’S Artificial Intelligence/DecisionSupport Laboratory. Another prototype is“Grateful Meal, ’ bibliographic search softwaredeveloped by the National Library of Medicinefor users of the MEDLARS database.

An NTIS Electronic Document System, ifproperly interfaced with the source agencies,should be able to substantially reduce the timelag between the existence of a document andits availability via NTIS. The time lag couldbe further reduced if interagency proceduresare strengthened so that agencies are required

. . - >. — , ‘- — “

to make more timely submissions to NTIS.Strengthening of such procedures could alsoaddress the question of how to increase thecompleteness of the NTIS archive. As notedearlier, perhaps one half of the scientific andtechnical reports generated by or for Federalagencies are not submitted to NTIS. While allthe fugitive documents may not be relevant,it is likely that a significant portion of theseare. Agencies could be required to provide morecomplete submissions and/or follow a specifiedset of procedures for determining what itemsshould be submitted.

An electronic NTIS with a more completeand up-to-date archive would open up a widerange of possibilities for marketing and dis-semination of scientific and technical informa-tion. The following illustrative activities couldbe implemented by NTIS, individual Federalscience agencies, and/or private vendor:

●

●

●

●

●

●

CD-ROM distribution of NTIS biblio-graphic database on selected subjects;CD-ROM distribution of NTIS documentson selected subjects;Floppy disk distribution of individualNTIS reports;Online distribution of selected NTIS doc-uments with printing-on-demand of the en-tire document or selected pages at NTISor remote locations;Electronic bulletin board announcementof selected new NTIS documents of gen-eral interest; andElectronic bulletin board announcementof NTIS documents on subject mattermatched to the bulletin board partic-ipants.

In essence, an electronic NTIS would havethe capability to produce multi-format output—paper, microfiche, offline electronic, or on-line electronic as appropriate, depending on thetype of product and user needs. As notedearlier, the GAO survey results highlighted thesignificant anticipated increase over the nextthree years in demand for scientific and tech-nical information in electronic formats on thepart of libraries and scientific and technical

associations. Demand for paper and microficheis anticipated to decrease moderately over thenext three years.

Overall, an electronic NTIS should be ableto greatly increase the diversity and timelinessof NTIS (and related private vendor) offerings,increase the ability of NTIS (and private ven-dors) to match information products with po-tential users, and reduce the cost of NTIS (andprivate vendor) products. An electronic NTISalso should be better able to serve, especially,small and medium businesses and individualresearchers who tend to be penalized by thepresent paper-based system that assigns apremium to economies of scale. Understand-ably, NTIS directs much of its marketing ef-forts at its largest customers who generate themost sales, but who also are typically wellstaffed with information specialists. An elec-tronic NTIS would increase the incentives andavailable options to reach smaller market seg-ments from whence many innovations ulti-mately originate. It is certainly conceivablethat NTIS could eventually be used by the in-dividual researcher and entrepreneur who de-pend heavily on informal and collegial net-works for the sharing of scientific and technicalinformation. Also, NTIS would be a logical keyparticipant in the development of a govern-mentwide information index, for which re-spondents to the GAO survey of Federal in-formation users indicated strong interest. Suchan index would also help improve the abilityof researchers and entrepreneurs to know ofpotentially relevant information. Finally, asa complement to the electronic document sys-tem and improved indexing, increased agencyparticipation in the NTIS clearinghouse mayneed to be mandated. The declining trend inthe percentage of agency scientific and tech-nical documents submitted is cause for con-cern. While including 100 percent of agencydocuments in NTIS is unrealistic, some stepscould be taken to broaden the coverage andincrease the timeliness of agency submissions.This could be accomplished through inter-agency agreements, OMB circulars, and./or, ifnecessary, legislation.

119

NTIS/SUPDOCS COOPERATIONThe consolidation of NTIS with GPO’s Sup-

Docs has been proposed by the Public Printerand as part of legislation introduced in the pasttwo Congresses that would establish a Gov-ernment Information Office. However, thissection focuses on opportunities for improvedcooperation between NTIS and SupDocs, ir-respective of the formal institutional structure,since the need for improvements in NTIS/Sup-Docs marketing, product line analyses, and co-ordination will exist regardless of the institu-tional structure. (See chs. 11 and 12 for furtherdiscussion of institutional alternatives.)

The major reasons advanced for improvedNTIS/SupDocs cooperation (whether or notthrough formal consolidation) are: efficienciesin management and operations, improved co-ordination of Federal information dissemina-tion, enhanced opportunities for use of newtechnology, strengthened joint marketing pro-grams, reduced overlap and duplication ingovernment dissemination activities, and im-proved overall public access to Federal infor-mation. Possible drawbacks of or barriers toimproved cooperation include: some differ-ences in current missions of the NTIS and Sup-Docs and resultant potential problems in moreclosely coordinating these functions, difficul-ties inherent in cooperative activities of agen-cies from different branches of government,and reluctance on the part of some Federalagencies to cooperate with NTIS and/or Sup-Docs, regardless of the institutional structure.

Differences and Similarities

The major differences between NTIS andSupDocs are that:

●

●

NTIS is in the executive branch while Sup-Docs is in the legislative branch;NTIS maintains a permanent archive ofscientific and technical documents totall-ing close to 2 million items, while GPOmaintains documents in inventory only

while in stock or if reprinted (usually dueto strong demand);NTIS has 2 million document titles forsale whereas the average SupDocs salesinventory is about 20,000 or about one per-cent of the NTIS inventory;the average NTIS sales volume is about10 copies per title whereas the SupDocSaverage is on the order of 2,000 copies pertitle;NTIS retains all titles received in theNTIS archive and available for sale, whileSUpDocS for the most part includes onlythe titles judged to have significant salespotential;the NTIS annual sales volume is in thefew millions range whereas the SupIXxxvolume is in the few tens of millions range;and,NTIS is considerably smaller than Sup-Docs–at yearend fiscal year 1987, NTIShad 344 employees compared to 930 forSupDocs, NTIS had total revenues ofabout $22 million in fiscal year 1987 com-pared to about $100 million for SupDocs(figures include reimbursed services andservices funded through appropriations).

At first glance, these differences could ap-pear as, collectively, a significant barrier to im-proved cooperation. However these differencescould become complementary aspects of a com-bined strateg~ for institutional sur~~iva] andgrowth.

There are significant similarities betweenNTIS and SupDocs:

●

●

●

Both must operate their sales programson a breakeven basis, that is, there are noappropriations to subsidize the cost ofsales.Both must compete with private vendors,who can always reprint and resell govern-ment documents since these materialscannot be copyrighted.Both must compete to some extent with

120

Federal mission agencies, who frequentlydistribute significant numbers of copiesof documents free of charge to agencyclients, contractors, and interest groups.

Both NTIS and SupDocs carry out market-ing activities in support of their sales pro-grams, although the programs have relativestrengths and weaknesses:

●

●

NTIS produces a variety of specializedsubject matter searches that have no di-rect parallel at SupDocs.SupDocs makes growing use of radio andtelevision public service announcementsand is revitalizing the GPO bookstores assales outlets, marketing tools not used byNTIS.

NTIS and SupDocs perform reimbursableservices for other agencies:

●

●

e

In fiscal year 1987, NTIS performed about$2.5 million worth of services for otheragencies (accounting for roughly 10 per-cent of total revenues).In fiscal year 1987, SupDocs performedabout $5 million in reimbursable services,primarily for operating the CIC for GSA(accounting for about 5 percent of totalSupDocs revenues).If the DLP, also operated by SupDocs, iscounted as a reimbursable service fundedthrough appropriations, then reimburs-able services would be about 25 percentof total SupDocs revenues.

The similarities go on. Both NTIS and Sup-Docs prepare indices or catalogs to govern-ment documents. NTIS publishes a weekly andannual Government Reports Announcementand Index Journal (known as GRA&I) that in-cludes summaries of government conducted orsponsored research reports. The summaries areindexed by subject, author, institution, andcontract number (if applicable). NTIS also pre-pares the NTIS Bibliographic Database thatincludes all items in the NTIS archive. In addi-tion to government conducted or sponsoredreports, the NTIS Database includes federally-generated machine readable data files and soft-ware, U.S. Government inventions available

for licensing, and foreign government reportsexchanged with Federal agencies and anyfederally-generated translations thereof. TheNTIS database is updated biweekly and, isavailable online through commercial vendors.

SupDocs prepares:

the Monthly Catalog of United StatesGovernment Publications (which indexespublications by author, title, subject, ser-ies/report number, contract number, stocknumber, and title keyword);the 3 times a year Consumer InformationCatalog (which lists consumer publica-tions from about 30 Federal agencies thatare available free or at minimal chargefrom CIC);the quarterly Government Peri&”cals andSubscription Serw”ces (which lists over 500subscriptions to periodicals and recurringreports published by more than 40 Fed-eral agencies and sold by SupDocs);the 3 times a year U.S. Government Books(which catalogs about 1,000 of SupDocsbest-selling publications); andthe bimonthly New Books (which lists newSupDocs wd-es items).

Information on SupDocs sales items, bibliog-raphies, and catalogs is available from privatevendors, in both online and CD-ROM formats.For example, the GPO Sales PublicationsReference File, which lists all GPO titles cur-rently for sale, is available online to the publicvia the commercial DIALOG information re-trieval service and includes an online orderingcapability.

Both NTIS and SupDocs primarily use pa-per and microfiche formats for dissemination,although NTIS sales of computer tapes, floppydisks, and software have been growing, as haveGPO sales of computer tapes. Both NTIS andSupDocs have international exchange pro-grams to encourage the two-way flow of infor-mation between the U.S. and other countries.Finally, it bears emphasis that, except for thetype of bibliographic and index products men-tioned earlier, both NTIS and SupDocs dependon the Federal mission agencies as the primary

121

source of documents. The agencies (includingCongress for SupDocs purposes) create the doc-uments and in many cases handle primary dis-tribution; NTIS and SupDocs as government-wide information dissemination mechanismsare responsible for, in effect, secondary distri-bution through their sales programs (andthrough the DLP and CIC in the case of Sup-Docs)~Private vendors also serve as second-ary distributors of selected agency documents.

Disadvantages and Advantages

The possible disadvantages of improvedNTIS/SupDocs cooperation are erosion of theNTIS archive function and aggravation of sep-aration of powers concerns. Representativesof the scientific and technical community aswell as the Federal science agencies believe thatthe NTIS archive or something equivalent isessential to the U.S. research and developmenteffort and to basic science and technical inno-vation. From this perspective, cooperative ini-tiatives would have to be designed so as to en-sure continuity of the archive. If the DLP isviewed as part of SupDocs, then SupDocs doesalready have an archive function, since the re-gional depository libraries maintain a completearchive of all government publications distrib-uted to them, 60 percent of which in recentyears are in microfiche format. Also, either mi-crofiche masters or camera ready copy existedat some previous point in time for most of thesematerials. However, retention of these origi-nals is incomplete, and neither the originalsnor the regional depository library archives areavailable as part of a coordinated sales pro-gram. The SupDoc’s Library Programs Serv-ice does maintain a collection of microfichemasters procured for the DLP, and plans toeventually transfer this collection to the Na-tional Archives and Records Administration(NARA). Copies of some of these items areavailable for sale on demand. It also shouldbe noted that NTIS has submitted to NARAa plan that provides for transferring NTISmaster microforms to NARA when records are10 years old.

The actual current overlap between the NTISarchive and the SupDocs sales program is

thought to be small; the overlap between theNTIS archive and the regional library archivesis unknown (as the libraries do receive someNTIS publications).

Another possible disadvantage is aggrava-tion of separation of powers concerns, sinceNTIS is in the executive branch and SupDocsin the legislative. Some Federal executivebranch agencies do not like the current rolesof GPO and the Joint Committee on Printing(JCP) (as authorized by Title 44 of the U.S.Code) with respect to agency printing and pub-lishing activities, view those roles as inap-propriate and/or unconstitutional (see ch. 11),and oppose any greater role for them. Regard-less of the merits or demerits of these concerns,the role of SupDocs has not been the primaryfocus of attention or challenge. In fact, someNTIS officials believe that NTIS is handi-capped because, while Federal agencies arerequired to participate in the SupDocs salesprogram, agency participation in the NTIS ar-chive is voluntary and not required by stat-ute. SupDocs seems to be able to work effec-tively with many executive branch agencies,even though SupDocs is in the legislativebranch. Nonetheless, improved NTIS/SupDocscooperation and especially a consolidation isviewed by some Commerce Department andOMB officials as possibly aggravating con-flicts over separation of powers, but more im-portantly, from their perspective, further dis-tancing the creators of the information (theexecutive agencies) from the disseminators. Inthis view, the decentralizing tendencies of elec-tronic technologies should be encouraged byplacing information dissemination as close aspossible to the ultimate users of the informa-tion. The strengthening of centralized dissem-ination mechanisms (whether SupDocs, NTIS,or even governmentwide indices) seems to befeared and resisted, even if centralized dissem-ination would not preempt agency dissemi-nation.

It seems plausible that strengthened NTIS-SupDocs cooperation would lead to improve-ments in indexing, marketing, and interna-tional exchange. Perhaps most important, how-ever, is the potential improvement in overall

722

strategic posture that could result from im-proved cooperation. As presented earlier in de-tail, NTIS is in a very vulnerable situation. Incontrast, SupDocs has maintained better thanbreakeven operations in recent years, with netincome of $11.4 million in fiscal year 1987 and$5.5 million in fiscal year 1986. However, whilein a strong position compared to NTIS, Sup-Docs has some emerging areas of vulnerabil-ity that could become significant in a rathershort period of time.

Like NTIS, SupDocs could be vulnerable toelectronic competition. For example, one ofSupDocs largest revenue sources is the Com-merce Business Daiiy (CBD), with subscrip-tions generating more than $9 million in Sup-Docs revenue, or about 12 percent of total salesrevenue in fiscal year 1987. However, the re-sults of private sector marketing of the CBDonline or on CD-ROM suggests that electronicformats may be preferable for many C13D cus-tomers. If the demand for paper copies declineddramatically over the next few years, it is con-ceivable that the Department of Commercemight stop funding the set-up charges forprinting paper copies. While SupDocs presum-ably could continue to print the CBD itself,the cost would increase significantly, sinceSupDocs now pays only the marginal print-ing cost, but would have to pay the full print-ing cost if the Department of Commerce ceasedparticipation. This could put SupDocs in theposition of raising prices for paper copies ofa product (the C13D) that clearly is well suitedto electronic formats, especially online. If theNTIS experience is any guide, higher pricescould further reduce sales and encourage more

users to switch to electronic formats, whichin turn could lead to yet another price increasefor paper copies to cover fixed costs with asmaller sales volume. According to GPO, un-der current law, if the Department of Com-merce stopped printing the CBD, there wouldbe no printing requisition for SupDocs to“ride” (order extra copies) and thus no “addi-tional copies” for SupDocs to sell.

Other SupDocs best sellers that might be vul-nerable include (with fiscal year 1987 revenuesindicated): the Code of Federal Regulations ($2million), Federal Acquisition Regulations ($1.9million), Tariff Schedules Annotated ($0.9 mil-lion), and DoD FAR Supplement ($0.9 million).

At the moment, SupDocs sales volume andtotal distribution appear to be holding reason-ably steady. Most indicators declined in theearly 1980s, but have since been relativelylevel. Trends for fiscal years 1981-87 are shownin Table 5-14 for SupDocs sales orders, copiessold, CIC free orders, CIC copies distributed,and depository library copies distributed.

A detailed analysis of the SupDocs productline is warranted to determine if significant vul-nerability extends beyond items such as theCBD and, as discussed in chapter 4, the Rec-ord and l?e~”ster, that are well suited to elec-tronic formats. Overall, SupDocs would appearto be in a stronger position than NTIS, sincemany of the traditional government reportsand periodicals sold or distributed by SupDocsare likely to be best suited to paper formatsfor years to come. Also, SupDocs has poten-tial opportunities in other areas, such as salesof government forms. For example, in fiscal

Table 5-14.—SupDocs Sales and Distribution Activity, Fiscal Years 1981-87

Millions of orders or copies

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987a

Sales ordersb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6Free CIC orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.2Copies soldb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 25.9 24.5 24.8 26.7 27.1 26.7Free CIC copies distributed . . . . . . . NA 25.7 23.0 14.7 21.9 19.2 21.5Depository library copies

distributed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 20.7 31.9 37.1 36,1 26.7 22.7aEstlmates.blncludes CIC sales

SOURCE U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988.

123—

year 1987, SupDocs sold IRS forms to tax prac-titioners. About 80,000 orders were processed,yielding a gross revenue of $2.8 million andnet revenue of $1.5 million. Nonetheless, giventhe strong commitment of many Federal agen-cies to shift to electronic formats over the nextfew years, especially for statistical, scientificand technical, and administrative documents,the SupDocs sales and distribution outlookbears continuous scrutiny.

NTIS-SupDocs cooperation could be espe-cially synergistic with regard to low-demanditems. At present, the NTIS product sales lineis dominated by low demand documents, butNTIS does not have the resources or mecha-nism to invest in the electronic technology bestsuited to low demand dissemination. On theother hand, the SupDocs product sales line isalmost devoid of low demand items, yet Sup-Docs does have access to the GPO revolvingfund for capital investment in electronic tech-nology (subject, of course, to approval of thePublic Printer and JCP and to overall GPOfunding constraints). An NTIS-SupDocs co-operative initiative could design an ElectronicDocument System (similar to the DTIC pro-totype) that would meet NTIS needs plus abroadening of the SupDocs product line to in-clude selected low demand items.

The economics of electronic printing-on-demand for low volume documents are quitesimple. Many of the cost elements in conven-tional printing are essentially fixed, and arenot affected by the number of copies printed,as shown in Table 5-15.

Thus most costs are independent of the sizeof the press run, and reducing the length ofthe press run increases the per unit printingcost, all other things being equal. Electronicprinting eliminates most of the prepress func-tions, although the cost of toner (e.g., for laserprinters) is higher per page than the cost ofprinting ink. Electronic printing is generallyless expensive per page at volumes of tens toa few hundred. In addition, electronic print-ing facilitates electronic linkages bet ween thedocument database and user terminals for on-

Table 5-15.—Conventional Printing Functions Affectedby Length of Press Run

Affected by lengthFunction of press runComposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - No --

Camera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoPlatemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoFilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoPlates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoPress makeready . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoPress running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YesBindery set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NoBindery running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YesPaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YesInk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YesSOURCE F J R;mano, 1988

—-

line searching and printing-on-demand ofselected pages.

Electronic printing provides cost-effectivemultiformat output capability and is especially

suited to low-volume, shorter, ald simpler doc-uments with straight text or text and tablesand a minimum of photographs and complexline art (high-end systems can handle photosand art work, although at higher cost). Bestestimates suggest that over half of the docu-ments printed by GPO, and about 90 percentof the documents printed by other agencies,are 100 pages in length or less. Estimates alSO

indicate that about 90 percent of all materialis straight text (80 percent) and tables (10 per-cent). The detailed breakout is shown in Table5-16.

Table 5-16.—Estimated Page Length and Contentof Government Documents

Other OverallGPO Government average. . — — —

Page length10 pages or less . . . . . . . . . 9“/0 13’Yo 110/0~1-50 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 2651-10() pages . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 37 31101-250 pages . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10 15251-499 pages . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10500 pages or more . . . . . . . 8 : 7Page contentText ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.30/0Tables ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8Line art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8Photographs ... , ... . . . . 4.1SOURCE GPO and F J Romano 1988

124

In sum, many government documents are suit-able for electronic printing if the demand is low.Clearly many NTIS document sales items meetthis criterion. At present, few SupDocs salesitems meet this criterion, since average salesvolume is about 2,000 copies (and the averageGPO press run is 3,000 to 4,000 copies). How-ever, a significant number of government doc-uments not presently included in the GPOsales program may be viable on an electronicprinting-on-demand basis. The combined NTISand SupDocs low-demand sales volume couldhelp justify investment in the necessary equip-ment. An Electronic Document System couldbe funded out of the GPO revolving fund andcharged back to SupDocs as depreciation, justlike any other SupDocs capital investment.NTIS could reimburse SupDocs for a proratedportion of the capital investment, funded outof NTIS retained earnings (if authorized byCongress).

NTIS-SupDocs cooperation could also besynergistic with respect to sales of what NTIScalls computer products. As noted earlier, thishas become a significant product line for NTIS,one of the few showing recent sales growth.However, it is likely that only a small fractionof agency computer products are included atthe present time. SupDocs has initiated a re-

lated sales program that at present is limitedto a few magnetic tapes. An expanded Sup-Docs program could start to duplicate NTIS.A single coordinated governmentwide salesmechanism presumably would be more effi-cient and easier for both the participating agen-cies and the customers. Many agencies wouldstill be likely to distribute some computer prod-ucts themselves. A coordinated and possiblyeven consolidated NTIS-SupDocs computerproduct line could also benefit from appropri-ate use of GPO bookstores, catalogs, and ad-vertising, and would fit well with the conceptof a governmentwide index to Federal infor-mation in all formats.

Another potential advantage of NTIS-Sup-Docs cooperation would be to improve coordi-nation among all four of the governmentwideinformation dissemination mechanisms (Sup-Docs, NTIS, DLP, and CIC) and help insurethat statutory requirements are fulfilled. It isalso possible that improved cooperation wouldresult in reduced total overhead and indirectlabor, due to efficiencies in certain manage-ment and administrative functions. However,a full analysis would require more detailed in-formation on NTIS and SupDocs cost and la-bor force structures.

Chapter 6

Information Technologies,Libraries, and the Federal

Depository Library Program

Clockwise from top left: library shelving with document collection materials; librarian assisting user at reference desk;librarian assisting user with map collection; and user on an OCLC terminal (photo credits: Documents Center,

Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University).

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................127Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........128Role of Information Technologies in Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Use of Specific Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...132Online Database Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133Library Communication Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134Electronic Bulletin Boards . . . . . . . . . . .............................135Optical Disks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................136Facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................137Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................138

Federal Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..138Origins and Operations of the Depository Library Program . ..........138Format of Depository Library Materials: Paper v. Microfiche ... ... ...140Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...142Online Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............144

TableTable Page6-l. Depository Library Access to Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Chapter 6

Information Technologies, Libraries, andthe Federal Depository Library Program

SUMMARY

Chapters 6 and 7 explore the role of libraries,and particularly those participating in the U.S.Government Printing Office (GPO) depositorylibrary program (DLP), in the disseminationof Federal information to the public. ] Theprogram is a cooperative activity between theFederal Government and approximately 1,400libraries. The government provides copies ofgovernment-produced materials free of chargeto the libraries; the libraries, in return, providehousing for the documents and access to thisinformation free of charge to their patrons.DLP is a principal avenue of access to govern-ment information for the public. It is recog-nized as one of several guaranteed channelsof public access to government informationestablished by Congress in support of ourdemocratic form of government, and serves inpart as an ‘‘information safety net for mem-bers of the public. This safety net is changingbecause of the increasing use of informationtechnologies by Federal agencies in supportof agency programs. This use is influencing theway in which agencies conduct their business,and how citizens access government infor-mation.

This chapter examines how libraries employa variety of information technologies to sup-port their mission of “allowing people to uti-lize information. First, the chapter reviewsthe role of libraries in the dissemination of gov-ernment information in the United States. Thisis followed by a discussion of key technologi-cal trends and applications relevant to librariesin general and to depository libraries in par-ticular. The technologies examined include

~ ~ ~ this rewrt, use of the phrase “depositor~ program”refers onl~’ to the CI PO depositor~ libra~’ program.

‘hl, Turoff and M. Spector, “ I,ibraries and the 1 replicationsof Computer Technology, proceedings of the,1 FI1’.S ,\’ati~~nalComputer (’(reference, 1’01. 45. 1 9 7 6 ,

microcomputers, online databases, librarycommunication networks, electronic bulletinboards, facsimile, and optical disks. Next, thehistory of the depository program is briefly re-viewed, followed by a description of currentdissemination efforts in the Library ProgramsService. Three topics concerning access to gov-ernment information are examined in detail:

dual format which concerns the distribut-ion of selected materials in paper and mi-crofiche:provision of government information inelectronic formats to depository librariesthrough a pilot project program; andthe development of online catalogs in de-pository institutions.

The three topics are concerned with meeting

the information and format needs of users,while at the same time facing and resolvingnew financial issues.

OTA has found that depository libraries areincreasingly incorporating new technologies insupport of user services and operations. The re-sults of the General Accounting Office Surveyof Federal Information Users, when comparedto earlier depository library data, indicate astrong and growing technology base in deposi-tory institutions. For example, 83 percent ofthose surveyed have access to microcomputerswith modems for online access, 95 percent haveaccess to microfiche readers with printers, 41 per-cent have access to a CD-ROM reader, and 36percent have access to a mainframe computerfacility. The survey also found that these sameinstitutions intend or wish to expand their useof information technologies within the next 3years to support user information needs. OTAhas concluded that information technologies,if appropriately planned and executed, hold thepromise of helping to achieve the original goals

127

128

and intent of the depository program throughenhanced access to government information.

Information technologies are changing howlibraries function and how users seek informa-tion. Many libraries are deploying the elec-tronic technologies to become gateways to in-formation with the use of local, State, regional,and national networks and informationservices—both public and private. The rela-tively recent, rapid introduction of new infor-mation applications, such as full-text onlineretrieval of networked information servicesand CD-ROM tools, demonstrates that librar-

ians and information providers are experiment-ing with current electronic capabilities and fu-ture opportunities in order to meet userinformation needs. For example, it appearsthat since government information has beenintegrated into library collections through on-line catalogs, use of the information has in-creased significantly.

While these technologies present the userwith different types and levels of access, theyalso present both the librarian and user withnew cost concerns and format decisions.

INTRODUCTION

People need information to perform a vari-ety of daily tasks, to participate in govern-mental deliberations, to vote, to be effectivemembers of a community, to make businessdecisions, and more. As the largest collectorand disseminator of information in the UnitedStates, the Federal Government is responsi-ble for creating and disseminating much of this“information” used by the public. Informationreaches the public through a number of for-mal and informal, complimentary and competi-tive channels. These range from agency pro-grams with specific dissemination charters toprivate sector services, and from public inter-est group efforts and the media to libraries—State and local public libraries, libraries in aca-demic and research institutions, speciallibraries, and Federal libraries.

Many of these channels are supported by theFederal Government in recognition of the im-portance of public access to government infor-mation. This is a basic tenet of U.S. societyand is considered vital to the functioning ofour democratic form of government. As statedby Jefferson:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and freein a state of civilization, it expects what neverwas and never will be . . . if we are to guardagainst ignorance and remain free, it is the

responsibility of every American to be in-formed.3

Recognition of the importance of an informedcitizenry has been affirmed since the found-ing of the country, and continues through theenactment of new laws such as the Freedomof Information Act, Government in the Sun-shine Act, and the law establishing the DLP.As stated by Senator Lausche during hearingson the Depository Program in 1962:

Although it may sound trite, an intelligent,informed, populace has been, is and will con-tinue to be the fundamental element in thestrength of our Nation. Contributing greatlyto that intellectual strength is the so-calledGovernment document, designed to dissemi-nate to the American public important infor-mation relative to the activities and purposesof its Government.4

There is also the understanding that: “equallyimportant is their (the people’s) ability to ac-cess all other types of information, informa-

~Letter to Cd. Charles Yancey from Thomas Jefferson, July6, 1816.

‘U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,Subcommittee on the Library, Depositor-y Libraries, Hearingson S.2029 and H.R. 8141 To Revise the Laws Relating to De-positor-y Libraries, 87th Cong., 2d session, Mar. 15-16, 1962,p. 25.

—-

tion that has a direct bearing on the qualityof life our citizens enjoy.

In addition to democratic and quality of lifeprinciples, the DLP serves the business com-munity, which is important to local, State, andnational economies. Congress, through theestablishment of the DLP, specifically recog-nized the need for a guaranteed channel of ac-cess to government information by citizens,and in Title 44 describes the purpose of theprogram as an avenue of dissemination of gov-ernment information free of charge to thepublic:

The depository library system is a long-established cooperative program between theFederal Government and designated major li-braries throughout the United States underwhich certain classes of Government publica-tions are supplied free of cost to those librariesfor the purpose of making such publicationsmore readily accessible to the Americanpublic.”

The primary mission of the program as setout in the 1977 Guidelines For the DepositoryLibrary System is: “. . . to make U.S. Govern-ment publications easily accessible to the gen-eral public and to insure their continued avail-ability in the near future. The Guideh”nes a.lsonote that the materials will be forwarded tothe participating institutions” without delay, ”again to insure timely access to informationby citizens.7 There are two other elements ofprogram mission: use of government docu-ments by the academic/research community;and educational needs and use.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)also recognized the importance of the programin Circular A-130 and noted that: “depositorylibraries provide a kind of information ‘safety

“Testimony of <Joseph Duncan on behalf of the 11A in U.S.Congress, Committee on [~overnrnent Operations. ElectronicCollection and Dissemination of Information b?’ Federal .4gen-cies: A Policy 0~’er\riew’, 99th Cong., 2d CWSS., House ReportNO. 323, 1986, p. 52.

‘U.S. Congress, Senate Committee cm Rules and Administra-tion, op. cit., footnote 4, p.1.

‘Depositor IJibrary Council, Guidelines for the Depositor>I.ibrar?- S~rstem GPO: il$rashington, DC: Oct. 18, 1977). p. 1.

129—

net’ to the public, an existing institutionalmechanism that guarantees a minimum levelof availability of government information toall members of the public, ” and “the FederalGovernment shall rely upon the depository li-brary system to provide free citizen access topublic information. ”

There are many classes of government in-formation collected for a variety of purposes,and these are disseminated to the publicthrough the DLP. Some information is referredto as process, core, or basic information suchas that found in the Federal Register and Con-gressional Record, executive and congressionalbudgetary information, and the like. This in-formation is recognized as both a product ofthe operation of government and a necessaryelement to maintaining an educated and in-formed citizenry. As noted by members of theSubcommittee on the Library, “Governmentpublications generally serve two main pur-poses. In the first place they have a functionalvalue in the agency which issues them. Sec-ondly, and often quite as important, they havean educational value which makes their avail-ability y to the American public a highly desira-ble objective. In the course of fulfillingtheir missions, agencies collect information.Some agencies, such as the Bureau of Census,collect information on the population as theirmission; other agencies, such as the Depart-ment of Transportation, collect information inorder to effect policy and regulation. This sameinformation is then used by a variety of com-munities—business and industry, academia,and others—for a variety of purposes.

The Federal Government has long recog-nized the importance of libraries as a channelfor disseminating information it has collected.The role of libraries in society, and the uniquerole of libraries in support of the “public good,

“Office of Management and Budget, ‘ ‘Management of Fed.eral Information Resources”, Circular No. A-130, Dec. 12, 1985,and ‘Improved Management and Dissemination of Federal In-formation: Request for Comment, ” Federal Register, \rol, 45,June 9, 1980, p. 38462.

WJ. S. Congress Committee on Rules and Administration,Senate Report No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962 p. 8.

130.-

have been well defined. Libraries perform anumber of tasks in our society-’ ‘conservingand preserving our cultural heritage,”] 1 pro-viding education resources to various pub-lics, and disseminating government informa-tion. “The library. . . collects all the knowledgeof society, all the information, unedited, un-screened, unrewritten, and instead of broad-casting it to the masses, organizes, and directsthat information to the individual. ”]z Asnoted by Curley, “Libraries do not servemerely individual, informational, and recrea-tional interests, but are part of the essentialfabric of our society– its fragile cultural andsocial ecology. ‘1{] Libraries and librarians pro-mote access to all types of information and rep-resent user interests and information needs. Alibrary collection, regardless of format, reflectsthe information needs of its users, whether theybe the local community, academic, research, spe-cial interest institution, State, or region.

Today , there are over 8,000 public libraries,s,000 college and university libraries, 88,000elementary and secondary school libraries,2,700 Federal libraries, and 11,000 private andother special libraries in the United States.

This number and diversity are due in largepart to Federal Government recognition of theimportance of access to information throughlibraries. Since the founding of the Nation,there has been government support of libraries.The Continental Congress arranged with theLibrary Company of Philadelphia to receiveneeded information for its members, and theFirst Congress of the United States arrangedaccess to the New York Society Library forsimilar purposes. In April 1800, the Library

“ )Public good is the concept that the “good” for society isgreater than the well-being of certain individuals within it; seeI.ibraries, Coalitions and the Pubfic Good, E.J. Josey, cd., (NewYork, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1987).

‘‘ Robert Wedgeworth, “A Library Agenda for the 1980’ s.”in An Information Agenda for the 1980 ‘s, Carlton C. Rochell,cd., Proceedings of a Colloquium, (Chicago: American LibraryAssociation, June 17-18, 1980), p. 94.

‘JJohn N. Berry III, “The Public Good: What Is It?”Libraries, Co&”tions and the Public Good, E.J. Josey, cd., (NewYork, NY: Neal-Schunlan Publishers, Inc. 1987), p. 10.

] ‘Arthur Curlev, “Towards a Broader Definition of the Pub-lic Good,’” I,ibrar;es, Coalitions, and the Pubiic (iood, kj.J. Josey,cd., (11’ew }’ork, NY: Neal -Schuman Publishers, Inc. 1987), p. 36.

of Congress (LOC) was established and is nowthe largest library in the world. It continuesto be the principal library for Congress. In thelate 1850s the DLP was established to makecongressional and other governmental infor-mation more broadly available to the generalpublic. The establishment of a depositorylibrary system was further affirmation by Con-gress of the need for a sound distribution sys-tem for government documents through li-braries.

In addition, two national libraries wereestablished-the National Library of Medicine(NLM) began in 1836; and the National Agri-cultural Library (NAL) was created in 1862with the establishment of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. A variety of other informationdissemination mechanisms were subsequentlycreated, expanding the number of avenues forcitizens to receive government information—the National Archives in 1943, now known asthe National Archives and Record Adminis-tration (NARA); the Federal Library Commit-tee in 1965, now known as the Federal Libraryand Information Center Committee (a cooper-ative organization of Federal libraries); the Na-tional Technical Information Service (NTIS)in 1970 (its predecessor, the Office of Techni-cal Services, was created in 1946); and otherFederal depository programs such as the Pat-ent Depository Library Program. In addition,a series of congressional actions led to in-creased Federal involvement in libraries and,expanded the role of libraries in the provisionof information to citizens.

Since the Library Services Act (LSA) waspassed in 1956, the relationship between theFederal Government and libraries has ex-panded markedly. Libraries are one means bywhich the Federal Government seeks to pro-vide educational resources, services, and op-portunities to both a broad populous and tospecific segments of society. LSA provided li-brary services to rural areas, and the HigherEducation Act of 1957 authorized funds forthe purchase of books, periodicals, and otherlibrary materials; library training programs;and R&D for new ways to program, process,store, and disseminate information. The Li-

—

brary Services and Construction Act (LSCA)provides services to rural areas and allowsfunding for facilities’ construction, enhancingof interlibrary cooperation, and increased serv-ice for physcially handicapped, disadvantaged,and bilingual individuals. 11 LSA, the HigherEducation Act, and LSCA have enhanced thelibraries’ ability to serve the general population,and with various government information dis-semination programs, serve to strengthen andreinforce the role of libraries in the dissemina-

131

tion of government information. As noted incongressional hearings on the depository li-brary program:

The Clovernment is able to make such infor-mation available to the citizenry due in largemeasure to the splendid cooperation of theAmerican library profession. This is a ser~’iceto the Nation which its libraries ha~re per-formed in the past, are presently performing,and are anxious to perform in the future to agreater degree and in a more comprehensivemanner. 13

1“~1.s, congress, committee on Rules and t’+dm]rli~[r:it ion,op. cit., footnote 4, p. 26.

ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN LIBRARIES

All Libraries employ a variety of informationtechnologies in support of their mission of ‘al-lowing people to utilize information.’’”) Thefollowing section discusses the role of technol-ogies in libraries and reviews a few key infor-mation technologies and current applications.Emphasis has been placed on those technol-ogies found in depository institutions.

Although over time the physical form of in-formation has varied from manuscripts to au-diovisuals, to online service, and to other tech-nologies, the need of the librarian to access thisinformation for users has remained constant.A library is an institution that acquires, man-ages, and disseminates information. Moreover,‘‘a library is a bibliographic system regardlessof the situation in which it is placed, and thetask of the librarian is to bring people andgraphic records together in a meaningful rela-tionship that will be beneficial to the user. “l;

Information technologies offer libraries op-portunities and capabilities for enhancing theircurrent services and for allowing libraries to

“’Turoff and Spector, op. cit., 1976.‘ ; Pau!ine Wi l son , A Ccn]rnunit> Elice and tbe /)ul)ll’(, [,i-

brar.v: The li.~es of in forma~ion in I,eadership (W’estport, (’T:19771, p. xii.

better fulfill their missions. As stated by ~Bris-coe et al.:

Technology has already changed the tradi-tional way in which libraries operate, and thistrend will continue. The library needs to per-sist in its role as a knowledge institut,ion––mankind’s archive and encyclopedia—whileproviding the necessary services of an infor-mation broker: computer literature searching,information retrieval, and document de.livery .18

As libraries increasingly employ the technol-ogies and expand access to all types and formsof information, the role of the library and in-formation specialist will not diminish. In fact,the current role will likely increase. The adventof “user friendly’ software available to usersfor accessing electronic information systemswill increase the number of users in librariesand elsewhere, and at the same time manyusers will still require information specialists.For example, specialists in government infor-mation will: assist users in identifying sourcesto search, provide users with some assistancein using search technologies, and/or in somecases actually perform the search for users.

“P. 13riscoe, et al., “Ashurbanipal’s P;nduring Ar~het~’p~:Thoughts on the I~ibrary Role in the Future, ” College and I<e-search Libraries, March 1986, pp. 121-126.

132—

These same technologies, by integrating gov-ernment information into the full library col-lection, will increase both the use of govern-ment information and the use of the totalresources of the library and other local, State,regional, and national information resources.

Information technologies are not “new” tolibraries. A broad range of technologies havebeen employed by them for years and have af-fected all aspects of library operations andservices. In fact, it has been noted that:“Almost every function carried out in a libraryhas been altered to some extent by electronics,computerization, and telecommunications. Software is available for most aspects of li-brary operations: circulation, inventory, acqui-sitions, periodicals, cataloging, and reserves.The use of technologies for information userservices has resulted in the formation of librarynetworks, and has spurred the developmentof national databases, thus allowing faster andmore efficient access to information.20 “Thechanges brought about by advances in tech-nology have been so extensive that it is diffi-cult to assess their total effect, but it is clearthat libraries are in a stage of fundamentaltransformation. “2] Generally, library automa-tion refers to systems and technologies thatprovide improved access to resources withina library, whereas information automationrefers to systems and technologies that pro-vide access to resources outside the library.

A growing range of information technologiesare regularly employed in all types of libraries,though the cost of some of these needed tech-nologies is still prohibitive for many libraries,due to fiscal constra.ints.22 Library fundingcomes from a number of sources, includingState, local, and Federal governments, all ofwhich have experienced reduced revenues.

“Barbara Moran, Academic Libraries, The Changing Knowl-edge Centers of Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC:Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1984) p. i.

“)U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, informa-tion Technology and Its Impact on American h’ducation (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1982)p. 238.

‘l Moran, op. cit., footnote 19.“For those institutions unable to afford a “new” technology,

the user’s access to desired information may be limited as someinformation is not available in more than one format.

This, in turn, has affected libraries and theirability to purchase new systems.

These technologies and technological appli-cations are merely machines or processes fordistributing information-the content does notvary, though one can do more and differentthings with information in electronic form thanin paper form. As noted by the Commissionon Freedom and Equality of Access to Infor-mation:

. . . the new technology not only gives poten-tial users quicker and more convenient accessto wider bodies of information, including ins-tantly current information, than can be pro-vided by print alone; it also gives the user anew kind of abilit y to search through and man-ipulate the information, and in effect to cre-ate new information by the selection, combi-nation, and arrangement of data. Moreover,the user can alter the data in a kind of two-way transaction.23

A variety of technologies are found in de-pository libraries, though not always in thedocuments collection. The amount or types oftechnologies available reflect, in some respects,the parent institution. Twenty-three percentof the depository libraries are public libraries,55 percent are academic research institutions,7 percent are Federal libraries, 11 percent arelaw school libraries, and 4 percent are specialinstitutional affiliations such as special librar-ies and historical societies.

Use of Specific Technologies

In a 1984 survey of depository libraries, theAd Hoc Committee on Depository Library Ac-cess to Federal Automated Databases (ap-pointed by the Joint Committee on Printing[JCP]) concluded that:

. . . there is a wide array of computer equip-ment already in place in depository librariesor their parent institutions, and that many ofthe libraries regularly make use of time-shar-ing services for searching databases, bothGovernment and non-Government.

~ ‘American Library Association, Commission on Freedomand Equality of Access to Information, Freedom and L’qualitj’of Access to Information (Chicago, IL: 1986), p. 31.

24U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Provision ofFederal Government Pubh”cations in Electronic Format to De-

(continued on next page)

133

Since that survey, more depositories haveadopted information technologies.25 As indi-cated in the GAO Survey of Federal Informa-tion Users, for the 403 responding of the 451depositories surveyed, libraries were equippedas shown in Table 6-1.

Depository libraries employ one or more ofthe following technologies and/or technologi-cal applications: microcomputers, online dataservices (bibliographic, numeric and others),networks such as OCLC (Online College Li-brary Center) and RLIN (Research LibrariesInformation Network), automated informationsystems, electronic bulletin boards, opticaldisk technologies such as videodisk and CD-ROM, facsimile, and microfiche and relatedequipment. (A discussion of microfiche can befound in a following section on the format ofmaterials in the depository library program. )These are the primary technologies and tech-nological applications in use today and thosemost likely to be found in libraries within thenext 5 to 10 years.

In a 1984 survey, over 5,000 public libraries,1,600 academic libraries, and more than 7,000special libraries were using microcomputers fora variety of information automation and li-

(continued from pre~ious pagelpository Libraries, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depos-itory Library Access to Federal Automated Databases (Wash-ington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984) p. 3.

‘>Discussions with Joseph McClane, Chief Library Inspec-tion Team, LPS, and Mark Scully, Director, I.ibrary ProgramsService, U.S. Government Printing Office. Dec. 8, 1986.

Table 6“1 .—Depository Library Access to InformationTechnology

Number of LibrariesTechnology with Equipment

Microcomputer without ‘ -

modem . 283Microcomputer with modem

for online access . . . . 337Microfiche reader without

printer . . . . . . . . . 352Microfiche reader with printer 384CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . 169V i d e o d i s k p l a y e r . . 72Mainframe c o m p u t e r 149SOURCE GAO Federal Information User Survey, 1988

brary automation tasks. In addition, therewere over 140,000 microcomputers in elemen-tary and high school libraries. Recent surveydata, including the GAO Survey of Federal In-formation Users, indicate further growth andpurchases by libraries. A recent survey discov-ered that the mean expenditure spent on li-brary automation per library over the past 5years was $38,000. As in the 1984 survey,word-processing software continues to be themost popular software, followed by softwarefor database management purposes and sta-tistical uses in academic, public, and speciallibraries. School libraries prefer word process-ing as well, though statistical, database, in-ventory, graphics, and spreadsheet softwareare also used in these institutions. PC’s are em-ployed in support of administration, catalog-ing, and reference purposes the majority of thetime.2G

Online Database Services

Online database services, such as DIALOG,BRS, and other computerized retrieval sys-tems, cover a wide array of continually expand-ing subject areas. Each database is a compila-tion of textual, statistical, and/or bibliographicinformation. Bibliographic and referral data-bases are sometimes called reference data-bases, whereas numeric and textual-numericdatabases are called source databases. In 1979-80 there were 400 databases, 221 database pro-ducers, and 59 online services available. By1987, there were 3,169 databases, 1,494 data-base producers, and 486 online services. y~

These services allow rapid access to informa-tion sources, can integrate information for theuser, permit libraries greater flexibility in achoice of format, and provide access to previ-ously unavailable information. Use of theseservices also allows the library to be less de-pendent on paper or hard-copy indexing ma-terials. These services are a primary means ofaccessing certain types of government infor-mation not found elsewhere (e. g., government

“’Sur\’e\’ data from Cahners Research, September 1986, and“Table 1,-” I,ibrm-j. Journal, No\ember 1986, p. IJC8.

‘7 Cuadra Associations, Director~’ of Oniine Databases (NewYork, NY: 1986) \’ol. 7. No. 3, p. ~.

134

information found only in an online format,such as some Bureau of the Census data).

Online bibliographic services usually requirea trained searcher to search the databases ef-fectively, and also to limit search time andassociated costs. A number of vendors and in-stitutions, such as NLM and academic insti-tutions, have introduced user-friendly softwarethat may reduce both the need for trainedsearchers and the costs of online searching.

Pricing policies for online services vary.Some services charge a monthly fee (e.g. $200per month), as well as connect time rangingfrom $4.00 to $45.00 per hour and system usecharges ranging from $.03 to $.90 per unit ofcomputer processing time. There may also bedisk storage costs incurred with certain serv-ices. Prices of online services are most com-monly based on hourly connect charges in addi-tion to telecommunication costs for access tothe network. These connect charges range from$15 to $300 per hour. If offline printing occurs,the user will typically pay per citation orpage.” Online services are reexaminingconnect-time pricing due, in part, to the in-crease in transmission speeds. With the in-crease in transmission speeds (from 110 bpsto 300 bps in the 1970’s to up to 2,400 bps orhigher today), users can perform more in-depthsearches, download, or print in a more cost-effective manner. NLM and Mead Data Cen-tral have revised their pricing schedules to ac-count for this shift. For example, NLM nowhas a lower connect fee, and charges accord-ing to the characters transmitted and the workperformed on a given search by the NLMcomputer.

A number of Federal agencies produce data-bases consisting of original statistical infor-mation. Agencies such as the Bureau of Censusprovide computer tapes of their information,sometimes, in lieu of the paper format. Use ofthese numeric databases allows the librarianto both provide the needed information to thepatron directly and be able to manipulate the

‘* Ibid., pp. v-vi.

data to the extent desired. In general, the GAOSurvey of Federal Information Users foundthat depository institutions use online serv-ices primarily for bibliographic and statisti-cal information. Regular library use of manyof the Federally generated databases availablethrough commercial vendors is limited becauseof the relatively high costs. Online systems,such as DIALOG and BRS, have introducednew services for “after hours” users that cansubstantially reduce the costs of online search-ing, if a library can accommodate requisitescheduling changes.

Library Communication Networks

Two or more libraries may form communi-cation networks utilizing information technol-ogies to enhance the exchange of materials, in-formation, or other services. The formation oflocal, State, regional, and national networkshas significantly altered the operation oflibraries. There are several types of networks–bibliographic utility, regional service organi-zations, and others (which include State-widepublicly funded networks, local or geographi-cally concentrated multi-institutional net-works, and sub-regional subject-orientednetworks). AMIGOS, SOLINET, CLASS, andthe like are regional service networks that fa-cilitate the expansion of the bibliographic util-ity. Although bibliographic utilities began asa means for libraries to reduce costs of cata-loging, their primary function today is for shar-ing of resources. One example of a biblio-graphic utility is OCLC, a major computer-based cooperative network with over 7,900members and employed by all types of librariesnationally and internationally. The OCLC net-work assists librarians in acquiring and cata-loging materials, ordering custom-printed cat-alog cards, initiating interlibrary loan, locatingmaterials in member libraries, and gaining ac-cess to other databases. More and more depos-itory libraries are using the OCLC databasefor reference purposes to assist in searchingfor government documents. The GPO LibraryDivision catalogs government documents into

135

OCLC where they can be searched by memberinstitutions.

These networks are undergoing changes intheir structure and functions. Areas affectedinclude autonomy for members, changes in thetelecommunication infrastructure, decen-tralized versus centralized control, the devel-opment of more integrated systems for librar-ies that permit less reliance on the utility andgreater emphasis on local resource sharing, andfinally, the debate concerning ownership ofdata found in the shared cataloging databases.As a result of network changes, libraries arebeing changed as well.]’)

Automated information systems are thosethat assist the librarian in performing specificlibrary tasks such as circulation, inventory, ac-quisitions, cataloging, administration, budget-ing, personnel, and more. Many depositorylibraries use OCLC to perform many of thesetasks because they lack access to other dedi-cated systems or necessary software. An ex-ample of an automated information system atNLM is DOCLINE. This is the Library’s auto-mated interlibrary loan request and referralsystem that automatically routes an inter-library local request through the RegionalMedical Library Network. Requests for titlesfound in SE RLINE, the Library’s online data-base of approximately 66,000 serial titles, arealso automatically routed, based on the hold-ings of SE RHOLD, NLM National Biomedi-cal Serials Holding database, which containsthe holdings of 2,276 libraries.

Electronic Bulletin Boards

Libraries are employing electronic bulletinboards in support of library operations suchas interlibrary loan (ILL), resource-sharingfunctions, and for access to current informa-

‘g13ecause GPO has been inputting to OCLC since July 1976,a limited amount of retrospective searching is possible, thoughit has been extensively noted that these earIjr GPO catalogingrecords contain numerous errors.

‘f’ Moran, op. cit, footnote 19.

tion located elsewhere. The Wisconsin Inter-library Service (WILS) network is one exam-ple of the growing use of bulletin boards inlibraries. The WILS network is used by overone-half of the 55 member libraries, a combi-nation of public library systems and State li-brary resource centers, in the Wisconsin librarysystem. WILS can handle over 90,000 requestsa year. Users note the following advantages:

it is inexpensive and, in fact, is less costlythan the previous system;it offers increased speed of communi-cation;many members had the necessary equip-ment (microcomputers and modems) and,therefore, it did not require special equip-ment or hardware purchases;it has the capability to store and track therequests in a database;it reduces the amount of paper used to sup-port the ILL system; andit enhances microcomputer use by librarystaff. 31

Libraries are also subscribing to bulletinboards containing government information.These boards contain timely informationproduced by agencies. For example, the SRSRemote Bulletin Board System (RBBS) of theNational Science Foundation contains infor-mation on financial and human resources forscience and engineering activities. Also in-cluded is information concerning currentstudies of the Foundation, announcements ofavailable publications, and comprehensive sta-tistical tabulations. Specific data containedwithin the file include: “Federal Funds for Re-search and Development, ” “Scientific andEngineering Expenditures at Universities, ”‘‘Employment and Demographic Characteris-tics: U.S. Scientists and Engineers, ” and “In-ternational Comparisons of Science and Tech-nology Data, among others .32 The GAO

‘] Cathy Moore, “Do-It-Yourself Automation: InterloanBulletin 130ards, ” Library Jouma), }10}. 112, NO. 18, NOV. i, 1987.

“National Science Foundation, “Remote Access to ScienceResources Studies Data”, 1987.

136

Survey of Federal Information Users found aminimal use of electronic bulletin boards bythose surveyed. The predominant library usewas for press releases and statistical data.

Optical Disks

In a 1985 survey by Link Resources Corp.,7.6 percent of the libraries contacted had oneor more videodisks or CD-ROMs. Sixty-fivepercent of those responding forecast a pur-chase of optical disk technology by 1990.33

The GAO Survey of Federal Information Usersfound that 169 of the 403 depository libraryrespondents had access to a CD-ROM player.Libraries are adopting optical disk technol-ogies for both operational or technical servicespurposes and for reference services. In fact,the”. . . library and information communitiesare at the forefront of testing the various op-tical media-videodisk, CD-ROM, and opticaldigital disk–in digital data publishing andstorage applications. These technologiescan provide improved access to a variety ofinformation tools and sources, are a means ofpreserving important documents and informa-tion, and appear to be popular with users.

Optical disk technologies include videodisks,compact audio disks, CD-ROMs, optical digi-tal disks, and others. This discussion will fo-cus on videodisks and CD-ROMs. With regardto videodisks, the very large storage capacityand the ability to carry both video and audioinformation, are the two key characteristicsthat make videodisks attractive technologiesfor libraries. There are a number of types ofvideodisks with different capabilities. The la-ser optical videodisk is the most accepted tech-nology. One indication of wider acceptance ofthis technology is the recent drop in the priceof products as more data files are introducedand competition increases.35

The MINI MARC produced by Library Sys-tems and Services is an example of a technical

service application in videodisk format. TheMINI MARC cataloging system is publishedon two videodisks containing over 2.1 millionLibrary of Congress MARC records– 1.5 mil-lion MARC records on 52,900 video frames onthe first disk, and over 600,000 MARC recordson 27,000 frames and 17,000 video frames ofindex data on the second. 36 The videodisk isupdated twice a month. ALDE (Applied La-ser Disk Efficiencies) Publishing produces theUnited States Code (USC) and the Code of Fed-eral Regulations (CFR) using digitally encodedvideodisks. These materials are available ondisk and can be broken out into specific areasof Titles of Interest. For example, Title 26 (taxcode) of the CFR is available annually withmonthly updates.37 Another example isIAC’S Government Publications Index on vid-eodisk, which indexes the Monthly Catalogfrom 1978 to the present with monthlyupdates.

CD-ROM, an optical storage device, “usesthe differential reflection of light from a mirror-like disk surface as a means of reading infor-mation. 8 The following factors make CD-ROMS increasingly popular, particularly inlibraries and for database creators:

● storage capacity,● durability and stability,● cost compared to magnetic tape and mi-

crofiche,● fixed searching costs,● the ability of users to perform the searches

themselves without a trained librarian toassist, and

size and compactness of the disk.

Despite a lack of common information accessand retrieval standards, an increasing numberof vendors are introducing database serviceson CD-ROM.

Use of a CD-ROM usually requires an inter-active system consisting of a microcomputer,a ROM disk, and a disk drive. Reference ma-

SSJudY Mc@een ad RichMd W. Boss, videodisk and @~i-

cal Disk Technologies and Their Apph”cations in Libraries, 1986Update (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1986), p.105.

]’Ibid., p. 3.]’Ibid., pp. 9-36.

“Ibid., p. 115.‘TIbid., p. 127.‘hDonald Case and Robert Powers, Optical Disk Publication

of Databases: A Review of Applications for Acaderm”c Libraries,(Washington, DC: Council of I.ibrary Resources, 1986), p. 4.

terials and large textual or statistical data-bases are ideal candidates for the CD-ROM for-mat in some libraries and information centers.Reference materials are especially well suitedto CD-ROM because they save shelf space anddo not require frequent updating.

Books in Print and Ulrich PeriodicalsDirectory are now available from R.R. Bowkerin CD-ROM format. In a joint venture withOnline Computer Systems Inc. who developedthe search software, the Books in Print Plusservice includes all of the multivolume BIP,the Subject Guide to BIP, BIP Supplement,Forthcoming Books and Subject Guide toForthcoming Books, in addition to names andaddresses of book publishers. This is containedon one disk. Ulrich Plus on CD-ROM includes68,000 periodicals, in alphabetical order by ti-tle, in 557 subject categories.

Online databases are also available on CD-ROMS. The primary advantage of having thesedatabases on disk is that the user may sit ata terminal for any length of time and not in-cur high connect charges. This allows the un-trained user to perform his/her own search.This user-oriented characteristic of CD-ROMexplains some of the technology’s popularity.In fact, many libraries find the need to placea time limit on the workstations due to thepopularity of using these disk files. AGRI-COLA, the database compiled by NAL con-taining citations on agriculture and relatedtopics, is available on CD-ROM from $950 an-nually with a quarterly update. Another gov-ernment-generated database, ERIC (Educa-tional Resources Information Center), is alsoavailable from $1,750 with quarterly updates.The acceptance by users of the CD-ROM tech-nology has been rapid, and as a consequence,vendors are quickly respondng through theintroduction of new products.

The Library Corporation markets Libraryof Congress (LOC) MARC databases in diskformat. The BiblioFile Catalog Production Sys-tem contains over one million Library of Con-gress MARC records on four disks. The usercan search, edit, create, and save MARCrecords, display the catalog card image, print

137.-

cards, transmit records, and more. Brodartmarkets the Le Pac: Government DocumentsOption on CD-ROM. This service also usesGPO/LOC MARC records, and provides a pub-lic access catalog of about 230,000 titles of de-pository and nondepository titles from 1976to the present on an annual subscription ba-sis with bi-monthly updates. Auto-GraphicsGDCS also produces a government documentscatalog on CD-ROM with monthly cumulatedupdates.

There are a number of other factors to beconsidered by libraries as this technology isintroduced. CD-ROMs cannot be updated un-less a new disk is mastered. Therefore CD-ROMS are not practical for time-sensitive data,Access time to CD-ROMs varies, and this maylimit the number of users able to use the sys-tem concurrently. Different databases requiredifferent access software and indexing struc-tures. The use of different search and retrievalsoftware packages by vendors results in diffi-culty for librarians when “putting up’ a newdisk. This requires additional expertise andtraining on the part of the libraries. Finally,a microcomputer or PC and a CD-ROM readerare necessary, and this may represent addi-tional expense to the library. However, manylibraries already have or will be purchasingmicrocomputers.

Facsimile

Facsimile is the transmission of printed in-formation (e.g., a letter, order form, interlibraryloan request) from one locale to another byencoding the printed materials into digitizedform. The information is converted (or decoded)back to its original form once it is received.Current generation digital facsimile machinesare able to transmit one to three sheets of 81,’zby 1 l-inch paper per minute. This is a substan-tial improvement over analog machines thatwere only able to transit one page every 6 to7 minutes. Facsimile machines area very quickmethod of relaying information between Iibrar-ies. The NLM facsimile program is an exam-ple of how this technology is currently used.NLM and a number of medical libraries are par-

138

ticipating in an interlibrary loan programwhereby NLM will send up to 20 pages of li-brary material to a member library in supportof emergency patient care. A small amount ofinformation is relayed quickly-this is not aprinting-on-demand program for lengthy doc-uments. The project is limited to emergencymedical care for a number of reasons: a broaderproject could overwhelm the NLM interlibraryloan staff, the cost could be prohibitive, andthe majority of requests are satisfied by theregular interlibrary loan program. Another ex-ample is the use of facsimile machines by GPOfield offices. Field offices send notices of print-ing requisitions via facsimile to the GPO Li-brary and GPO Sales Program. The GPO Li-brary and Sales Programs select items to beincluded in their respective programs and ad-vise the field offices via facsimile of the itemsand number of additional copies to be printed.

Summary

In summary, information technologies in-dividually and collectively are changing the na-ture of access to govermnent documents vialibraries and have the capability to improveaccess to government information. They can

provide timely and accurate information to li-brary users in a variety of formats and for vari-ous purposes. For instance, as noted earlier,surveys show that all types of libraries are pur-chasing microcomputers in increasing numbersfor a variety of purposes. The GAO surveydemonstrates the growing technology base indepository libraries and how new technologiessuch as CD-ROM are becoming more widelyaccepted and used.

Most importantly, information technologiespermit access to a much greater range of in-formation and resources, including govern-ment information through vendor (profit andnot-for-profit) services. New types of Federalinformation resources, such as statistical/nu-meric databases from the Bureau of the Cen-sus, are now online and available to librariesthrough the use of information technologiesand vendors. Newer technologies such as CD-ROM are moving quickly from the marketplaceto libraries as producers place more and moreservices in a CD-ROM format. Libraries areexperimenting and employing these technol-ogies in support of their operations, which, inturn, permits the user greater access to neededinformation.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

In 1813, Congress established a system forthe distribution of congressional literature, andthis system developed into the depository li-brary program-a significant avenue for dis-semination of government information to thepublic. The program has experienced a num-ber of changes since its inception, and is stillchanging as participating libraries and man-agers of the program at GPO debate how tobest serve the users of the depository system.The following section provides a brief descrip-tion of the origins of the program and its oper-ations. This is followed by a discussion of threespecific topics: 1) dual format distribution (pa-per and microfiche), 2) the dissemination of in-formation in electronic format, and onlinecatalogs.

Origins and Operations of theDepository Library Program

There are approximately 1,400 Federal de-pository libraries in the United States and re-lated territories. These libraries provide Fed-eral publications without charge to the generalpublic. This program is the primary avenue or“safety net ~ for dissemination of govern-ment information to the general public.

The DLP originated in 1813 when a resolu-tion was passed authorizing the printing of ad-ditional copies of’ congressional literature fordistribution to State governments and legis-latures. The following year, the American An-

“’Office of Management and Budget, op. cit., footnote 8.

. . .—— .—— -

tiquarian Societ y became the first depositorylibrary. Responsibility for the distribution ofmaterials shifted among a number of govern-ment agencies prior to resting with GPO. Con-gressional resolutions in 1857 and 1858 af-firmed the distribution of congressionalmaterials to institutions such as libraries andcolleges, and Members of Congress designatedorganizations within their districts as deposi-tory institutions. In 1895, a new printing actwas passed, incorporating the old legislationand placing responsibility for bibliographiccontrol efforts, distribution, marketing of pub-lic documents, and the DI.P in the office of theSuperintendent of Documents at GPO.*’) Thislegislation also specified that certain (not in-ternal, confidential, or administrative) execu-tive materials were to be included in the de-pository program. In addition, the act calledfor a catalog to be published each month list-ing government documents published the pre-vious month. A number of other points in thelegislation were central to the DLP-attainingstatus as a depository library could be gainedeither through congressional designation orthrough legal designation; and the Superinten-dent of Documents could now “investigate”depositor-y libraries and evaluate their hold-ings vis-a-vis the program. It was not until1923 that depository libraries were able to se-lect those government documents most appro-priate to their clientele. 1’

The Federal Depository Act of 1962 revisedthe previous legislation by:

. increasing the number of possible deposi-tory libraries;

● establishing a system of regional libraries(two per State), which were to maintaina permanent collection and provide inter-library loan and reference services;

providing for the transfer of certain doc-uments within New York and Wisconsinto either the ~New York State Library or

“’’l’he General I)rinting Act of 1895, ch, 23, 28 SLat 601 (codi-fied as amended in scattered Sections 44 [J. S.C.).

‘ i Peter Hernon, Charles hfc(’lure, and (jar~ Purcell, G P OL)epositor.\r Librarj’ Program .4 Descriptit’c .4nai\’si.~ (Norwood,N,J: i4blex Publishing Corp.. 19X5), pp. 5-8,

139

to the State Historical Society of Wis-consin;expanding the variety of government doc-uments available for distribution; andestablishing a reporting mechanism toascertain the libraies’ condition (the Bien-nial Survey became the reporting vehicle).

There have been two changes to the 1962Federal Depository Act. The highest appellatecourt of each State became exempt from therequirement of public access in 1972, and lawschools were eligible to become depositoriesunder the law designation in 197S, ~: This leg-islation has expanded the total number oflibraries in the program, since some of thoselaw libraries already participating becamemembers under the “law” designation thus al-lowing for new participants under the separatecongressional designation. Another effect hasbeen a substantial increase in law schools par-ticipating in the depository program; almostone-half of the new depositories between 1976and 1985 were accredited law schools. The ap-pointment of librarians and knowledgeable in-dividuals to a Depository Library Council be-gan in 1972 in an effort to assist the I>ublicPrinter and the Superintendent of Doc-uments. 3

One description of the Library ProgramsService is that of a “production shop, ’

From this perspective, its purpose is to act asa transfer agent of government documentsfrom Federal agencies to the member deposi-tories. By law (as stipulated in Title 44, alldocuments produced by an agency that are notconfidential, not for internal use, or not con-cerned with national security belong in the de-pository program. In fiscal year 1986, 66,367titles or 27 million copies of government doc-uments were distributed to depository libraries.GPO staff state that the workload of the pro-gram has remained relatively constant for sev-

‘-i bid., pp. 5-8.1‘Hernon, McClure, and Purcell, ~;p. cit., fmtn~te 42, p. 1 i.

.jn earlier (’ouncil was formed in the 1960’s.‘‘I)iscussion with Mark Scull~’, Director, I.ibrar~’ Programs

Ser\’ic’e, and [jonald Fossedal, Superintendent of Documents,[’. S [~t)~ernment Printing Office. Dec. 8, 1986.

140

eral years. GPO staff estimate that an addi-tional 5 percent of the 66,000 titles or about3000 titles are fugitive documents–those be-longing in the program but not included by theagencies .45

The operating cost of managing the deposi-tory program is provided by the GPO in theannual budget. In fiscal year 1987, the bud-get for the depository program was $19.7 mil-lion, and the fiscal year 1988 estimate is $20.2million. DLP is managed by the Superinten-dent of Documents. The principal mission ofthis office is to “distribute government docu-ments, and information about them for thethree branches of government. ”4G The DLP ismanaged directly by the Library ProgramsService (LPS), within the Office of the Superin-tendent of Documents. The Joint Committeeon Printing (JCP) oversees the policies andoverall direction of the program.

Until recently, the Gu.i”deLines for the Depos-itory Library System recommended thatlibraries (other than regionals that receive onecopy of all documents distributed) select a min-imum of 25 percent of available documents,and approximately 50 percent of the deposi-tories select no more than 25 percent of theavailable government documents. It is pre-dicted that “. . . the U.S. Government Print-ing Office will distribute approximately 20,000paper documents and 43,000 on microficheeach year. “47 For those libraries selecting theminimum number of government documents,this represents approximately 15,000 docu-ments per year-requiring an enormous invest-ment in space, collection maintenance, andstaff time by participating libraries. GPO,

—‘s Fugitive documents continue to be a problem for the pro-

gram, although members of the Library Programs Servicce be-lieve the number is declining. However, it has been noted bymembers of the depository library community that the numberof fugitive documents is increasing, at the same time that thenumber of materials in the depository library program is de-creasing.

%overnment Printing Office, Government Printing Office,Superintendent of Documents Description, Draft, (GPO, 1986),p. 1.

‘TDonald Case and Kathleen Welden, “Distribution of Gov-ernment Publications to Depository Libraries by Optical Disk,Government Publications Review, vol. 13, 1986, p. 314.

through a legislative branch appropriation, isresponsible for the cost of distributing thesematerials to member institutions if GPO printsthe documents. If another agency prints doc-uments on its own premises or elsewhere, thatagency is then responsible for the cost of print-ing copies for depository distribution, withGPO bearing the distribution costs.

Over the past several years LPS, the Depos-itory Library Council, and members of the de-pository library community have debated theavailability of government information indifferent formats in the depository libraryprogram. There are two debates regardingformat— the dual format debate that concernsmaterials distributed in paper and microfichewith libraries selecting either format; and thedebate about inclusion of government elec-tronic information products in the program.Both debates are concerned with meeting userpreferences on format, with the costs of pro-viding these products, and with ensuring ac-cess to government information regardless offormat. The focus of both debates is the ac-cessibility of the information and availabilityof the information.

Format of Depository LibraryMaterials: Paper v. Microfiche

Materials sent to depository library partici-pants are either in paper format, microfiche,or a combination of both (although onlyregionals can receive a title in both formats).Beginning in the early 1970s, the JCP and GPObegan to explore the advantages and disadvan-tages of instituting a microfiche publishingprogram for depository materials. In 1977, fol-lowing a number of library surveys and com-mittee evaluation efforts, the JCP gave per-mission to GPO to begin conversion of selecteddepository materials to a microfiche format toeffect cost savings for the program and for par-ticipating libraries. Private information pro-viders objected to this practice at the time be-cause it was their stated position that thelibrary community was already well served byprivate sector firms. At issue was the differ-ence in the scope and amount of materials to

.—

be offered by GPO in contrast to those avail-able from the private sector. Members of thiscommunity, as represented by the InformationIndustry Association (11A), believed that pro-vision of free microfiche to depository institu-tions would undermine their business, andvoiced concerns that the Federal Governmentwould be the “sole” information provider tolibraries and other users of Federal infor-mation.

Since that time, the LPS has adopted a pol-icy of providing more and more documents inmicrofiche format, primarily for financial rea-sons. Reduced production and postage costsof microfiche, compared to paper, allow sav-ings for the program. Many libraries haveadopted microfiche to both achieve greater ac-cess to a broader range of government materi-als and reduce their maintenance costs. Hous-ing of paper can be quite costly. In turn, useof microfiche has reduced the financial burdenon GPO. In the spring of 1986, 54 percent ofthe materials sent by GPO to member institu-tions were in microfiche, and the number is in-creasing. By December of 1986, 61.2 percentof the materials were in microfiche.~s In addi-tion, a number of agencies send their micro-fiche materials directly to library participants,based on interagency agreements resulting ina more decentralized operation. The Depart-ment of Energy sends copies of microficheconcerned with technical R&D informationdirectly to participating depository institu-tions, and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS)ships cartographic microfiche materials forthemselves and the Defense Mapping Agency(DMA). The Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC) also provides agency de-cisions in microfiche to depositories via its con-tractor, IHS. EEOC pays the production costsand is responsible for sending out the materi-als; GPO reimburses the EEOC for postagecosts.

There is a continuing debate between theLPS, member institutions, and the JCP overwhat proportion of materials and which mate-

“Discussion with Mark Scully, Director. I,ibrary ProgramsServices, GPO Dec. 8, 1986.

141

rials will remain in hard copy. In August 1983,the Superintendent of Documents issued SOD13, a list of criteria for determining which doc-uments were more appropriate in microficheor paper format. Criteria include physical char-acteristics (color, size, etc.,), timeliness, au-dience, frequency and type of use, savings inspace, historical significance, and referencevalue. This directive recognized that certaindocuments are more suited to either paper ormicrofiche and some documents to both for-mats. Depository librarians also recognize thatsome conversion to microfiche is helpful in or-der to reduce program costs, save space in par-ticipating libraries, and make more informa-tion available to the public. The DepositoryLibrary Council and the Public Printer con-tinue to work together to identify materialsthat can be converted to microfiche and thosethat must remain in dual format (that is, dis-tributed in both paper and microfiche). TheJCP passed a resolution on April 9, 1987 sup-porting choice of format for depository insti-tutions.

Dual format documents are the most heav-ily used titles in the majority of depositorylibraries, and “are the fundamental records ofGovernment.’’” Secondly, it is importantthat libraries receive dual format items suchas the F’edez-al Register in a timely fashion sothat users can respond to proposed regulationswithin a 30-or 60-day timeframe. The delay re-sulting from conversion from paper to micro-fiche format and subsequent shipment cansometimes make a timely response impossible.Third, the format of some key documents, suchas the Code of Federal Regulations, does notlend itself to use in the microfiche format.Given the high usage of key documents, theneed for receiving these documents in a timelyfashion, and ease of access to information con-tained in the paper documents versus micro-fiche, it is understandable why a paper formatis preferred.

Library use of microfiche has a number ofadvantages and disadvantages. On the pIus

1(] Conversation with Judy Myers, University of Houston Li-brary. tJune 1’7, 1987.

142

side, microfiche is an enormous space saver;consequently, more government informationcan be made available at the depository. Smallcolleges and public libraries in particular ben-efit from the distribution of government ma-terials in microfiche, and access is improvedsince many of these institutions otherwisecould not afford to store the materials. The useof microfiche also permits libraries to retainmore information for longer periods of time orpermanently. It is projected that, “. . . librariesthat accept all depository publications distrib-uted over the next 20 years will require an esti-mated 7,500 linear feet of hard copy storageand 2,500 linear feet of microfiche storage.

However, microfiche also has disadvantages.Librarians are finding that patrons prefer pa-per to microfiche as there are:

. . .problems with viewing and reproductionequipment (that) have resulted in user com-plaints of eye strain and unsatisfactory papercopies.51

The cost to the patron is at least double whenduplicating pages from microfiche, comparedto copying paper documents, and the range ofcosts to the library for the purchase of a mi-crofiche reader/printer from Kodak, for exam-ple, is between $1,500 and $5,000, plus main-tenance fees. Also, there are added difficultiesin the organization and bibliographic controlof fiche.52 Another consideration is that con-version of a document to microfiche by GPOadds 4 to 8 additional months to the process-ing time prior to the document being shippedout. GPO has stated that time-sensitive ma-terials will not be included in the microficheprogram due to this extra delay.5:’

The dual format issue exacerbates two some-what competing and contradictory philoso-phies of the depository library program. Tomany, the GPO program is simply one that

50Case and Welden, op. cit., footnote 45, p. 315.5’ Ibid.‘*Discussions at the Depository Library Council Meeting,

Oct. 15-17, 1986.~.~Discussion with Mmk &ully, op. cit., footnote 45. An IJPS

microfiche contractor has defaulted on the contract, causingextensive delays in the creation and distribution of microficheto the depositories.

transfers materials from the government toparticipating institutions. To others, the pro-gram is one that provides timely and inform-ative government materials to citizens in sup-port of the principle of public access. To thoseadhering to the access philosophy, the adop-tion of microfiche as the predominant formatnegates both the accessibility and timelinessobjectives of the program.54 Dissatisfactionwith the microfiche format by library patronsand the added delay of conversion from hardcopy to microfiche are cited as criticalfactors.”

An added difficulty in resolving the dual for-mat distribution debate is the poor but im-proving relationship between the managers ofthe DLP and members of the depository librarycommunity. There has been some improvementin the relationship since the LPS began upgrad-ing the quality of the GPO cataloging tapes,the inspection program, and pertinent train-ing programs and seminars, among other areas.On the other hand, GPO’s failure to resolveproblems with its microfiche contractor hasexacerbated its relationship with depositorylibraries.

Dissemination of Information inElectronic Format

Microfiche and hard copy materials are theonly formats employed to date by GPO in thetransfer of government information to depos-itory institutions (except for the planned ship-ment of the Bureau of the Census CD-ROM“Test Disk No. 2“ to the depositories).’6

GPO is currently reformulating agency pol-icies with respect to electronic disseminationin the depository program. Prior agency deci-sions to withhold electronic information from

‘iIIA supports the continuation of the dual format programsbecause it recognizes the need for items used more heavily tobe available in paper due to ease of access, patron preference,and timeliness.

‘sDiscussions and meetings, GODORT, American LibraryAssociation Midwinter Meeting, Jan. 16-19, 1987, Chicago, IL.

“t’GPO has agreed to “ride” the Census “Test Disk No. 2“order and ship copies of this CD-ROM to all depository institu-tions. The Census of Agriculture for 1982 and the Census ofRetail Trade by Zip Code will be included on this disk.

the program were based on a GPO interpreta-tion of previous legislation concerning the de-pository program, specifically section 1901 ofthe 1962 Depository Act. The opinion byformer GPO general counsel Garrett Browndetermined GPO policy:

. . . the Depository Library Act [of 1962] doesnot direct [the] Superintendent of Documentsmake published documents available in all pos-sible formats to the libraries. It was the intentof Congress that only printed publicationswould be made available to depositories, :);

(3PO now supports the position that, while itcannot require agencies to submit electronicproducts for distribution through the deposi-tory system, agencies may voluntarily submitelectronic products to GPO. Also, those elec-tronic products available in paper or microficheformat can be disseminated to depositories inelectronic format since these materials havealready been ‘‘published. ”

The recent plan to distribute a Bureau of theCensus CD-ROM to depositories prompted thePublic Printer to request approval from theJCP and clarification of the Committee’s viewsconcerning disseminatiOn of government infor-mation in electronic formats to depositories.In a March 25, 1988 letter to the Public Printer,Congressman Frank Annunzio, Chairman of theJCP, affirmed both the Committee’s supportof the Census project and the position that theGPO’s authority as required by Title 44, UiN”tedStates Code, extended to the “production anddistribution of Government publications inthese new formats. “;)”

GPO and the JCP recently developed a re-search plan that identifies selected electronicdata files as products for depository distribu-tion. This plan was approved by the JCP on.June 29, 1988. The demonstrations involve aombination of online and CD-ROM govern-

,- [). S. ”Congress, ,Joint Conlmittee on I]rinting l’r~~~i.sion of[’edt’ral {;o\’c3rnment ])utlficaLiOns in Eiectronl(’ [<’<)l”nl:jt t (~ [~tI-posj[or~” l.ihrarie.s, Report of the .Ad Hoc Comfllit we ()[1 h?poS-it~r~’ I.lbrar}T Access to Federal Automated Databases (\$’ash-ington, 1)(”: U S. (iovernrnent Printing office, I 984), pp. 112-113.

“l, etter from the ~][J1lOr~lbh? Frank Annunzio, Chairman,Joint Commit tee on I’rint ing CO the Ilonorable RaJph Kennick-ell, ,J r., the I’ub\ic I)rinter, hlar. 2.>, 19H8.

143-.

ment data files. The Subcommittee on Legis-lative of the House Committee on Appropria-tions supported dissemination in CD-ROMformats in the fiscal year 1989 I.egislativeBranch Appropriation Bill and requested acopy of the GPO-JCP plan. In addition, theCommittee noted that online access and otherformats (excepting CD-ROM) may require ad-ditional funding, and requested that GPO sub-mit any future electronic dissemination plansto the Subcommittee on Legislati\’e. -’(’

The JCP position on the dissemination ofgovernment information in electronic form re-sulted in part from the deliberations of the AdHoc Committee on Depository Library Accessto Federal Automated Databases. The Com-mittee’s efforts were based on a request fromthe JCP to: “. . evaluate the feasibility anddesirability of providing access to Federal Gov-ernment information in electronic formats todepository libraries. ” The Ad Hoc Committeehas considered a variety of formats, databases,and institutional arrangements for the pro\’ i-sion of agency information for the past Ayears.’”)

This advisor~ committee intended to recom-mend to Members of the JCP certain agencydatabases for depository distribution in onlineor CD-ROM format to test electronic dissemi-nation to depositories. These recommendationswere to be based, in part, on proposals madeby each agency to the JCP. As of December1986, 16 proposals were received by the JCPfrom Federal agencies hoping to participatein the pilot program. (;’ These proposalsranged from provision of 4 possible databasesfrom the U.S. Geological Survey-the GeologicMap Index, the Library System Catalog, theMineral Resources Data System, and the Se-lected Water Resources Abstracts–to 3 data-bases from the Department of the Treasury–

“’’U.S. Congress, Commitw, on ,\ppropriations, Legiskt~\(~Appropriations Bill, 1989 Report to accompanJ, H. R. 4587,Report No. 1W621, I()()th C’on~,. 2d session, 1988.

‘(’The Ad HOG Committee is c{)rnpc)sd of indit~iduals fromgovernment agencies and representatives of pertinent ass{)-ciations.

“‘The tJCP is still recei~’ing new pilot proj(lct proposals” fromFederal agencies interested in pro~iding electronic products t ()depositor: nlembers.

144

the Financial Management Database, the In-ternal Revenue Bulletin, and the Taxpayer In-formation Publications.

One goal of the pilot and demonstration pro-jects was to permit depository institutions ac-cess to some agency data not previously avail-able or data that were lost once converted toan electronic format. It would also open up thedepository program to government informa-tion in electronic form. The JCP passed a reso-lution on April 9, 1987, accepting the recommen-dations of the Ad Hoc Committee in principleand “urged” GPO to initiate pilot projects.

Despite the April 9, 1987 resolution, a fiscalyear 1987 funding request of $800,000 for theinitial round of pilot projects was deferred bythe Appropriations Committees of both theHouse and Senate. GPO did create the Infor-mation Technology Program within LPS, withinternal funds, to prepare the depository pro-gram for electronic projects, gather informa-tion on Federal agency electronic programs,and assist internal LPS operations.

The introduction of electronic formats to thedepository library program has been charac-terized as:

. . . an opportunity to make Government infor-mation useful and more timely, and, . . . an op-portunity to achieve a higher level of serviceto constituents.G2

This proposal has been endorsed by the Amer-ican Library Association, Special LibraryAssociation, American Association of LawLibraries, Association of Research Libraries,National Coordinating Committee for the Pro-motion of History, Medical Library Associa-tion, Cartographic Users Advisory Council,and others representing thousands of librariesaround the country. Many depository librar-ians also view the pilot projects as a chanceto test a variety of electronic formats, and dis-cover which one or combination of technologiesand formats (electronic, paper, and microfiche)are appropriate for different kinds information.Finally, provision of information in an elec-

‘)zDiscussions, American Library Association MidwinterMeeting, Chicago, II.., Jan. 16-19, 1987.

tronic format is seen as a continuation of thecurrent multi-tiered approach to disseminat-ing government information: provision of in-formation directly to the individual by govern-ment, provision of information via the privatesector through a number of services, and pro-vision of information through the GPO docu-ment sales program and the DLP. This three-tiered approach recognizes that there are bothdifferent markets and different users for thisinformation, and that these three modes of de-livery are not necessarily competitive and, inmany respects, are complementary.

Some database producers and services ob-ject to the inclusion of electronic formats inthe depository program as proposed in the pi-lot project program. The private sector posi-tion is represented, in part, by the Informa-tion Industry Association (11A), a tradeassociation with over 450 members from thepublishing and information sectors of the econ-omy. These businesses employ informationtechnologies to supply users, both public andprivate, with all types of information. The 11Ahas argued that provision of government in-formation in electronic format via depositorylibraries, as proposed in the pilot project pro-gram, would compete with existing private sec-tor online services, and that, if electronic for-mats are included in the depository program,they should be provided by private vendors.The Association has further stated that thedepository program should comply with OMBCircular A-130 (though the legislative and ju-dicial branches of government are not legallysubject to A-130), and that the goals of the de-pository program should be developed and re-viewed in much greater detail. Some membersof the 11A also contend that, if governmentinformation in electronic format is dissemi-nated through the depository program, privatevendors will be unable to compete fairly andwill suffer adverse economic consequences.

Online Catalogs

Some government information is availableto depository libraries in electronic formatsthrough a number of private and not-for-profit

145— ————-——— —— ———

database and vendor services, such as DIA-LOG, BRS, and OCLC, and the number of theseservices is growing. The majority of the depos-itory libraries have access to at least one of thedatabase systems, such as DIALOG or BRS,and the majority are also planning future on-line catalogs.’” Since 1976, LPS use of OCLCallows depository institutions and others tosearch OCLC and other online services for gov-ernment documents for cataloging purposes,for downloading into library catalogs, and asa limited reference tool.

LPS is the “center of authority” for the cat-aloging of Federal documents (employing ac-cepted Anglo-American cataloging rules[AACR2]), and is responsible for producingoriginal cataloging records of Federal docu-ments in a timely fashion. Once cataloged atGPO, the record is available online immedi-ately. Each week, OCLC sends the computertapes to GPO where they are consolidated bythe GPO Data System Service. Four computertapes are again consolidated to produce theMonthluY Catalog of the Um”ted States Govern-ment Publications. These GPO MARC tapescan be purchased from GPO and the Libraryof Congress by commercial firms and libraries.

As more and more libraries adopt informa-tion technologies, the promise of online cata-logs is particularly appealing for governmentdocument collections. It has been noted that,“three developments seem to have had thewidest impac~ on the overall effects of auto-mation in academic libraries: the growth anddevelopment of bibliographic utilities, thechanges brought about in information retrievalby the use of online databases, and the morerecent development of online public access cat-alogs. ‘f’f The 1981 Depository Library Bien-nial Statistical Summary found that only 70depository libraries (or 6 percent of all deposi-tory libraries) catalog all government docu-ments received, while 666 depositories (or 56percent) catalog less than one-tenth of itemsselected. It has been noted that:

“‘Con\rersation with .Joseph hlcl’lane. Chief. 1.ibrar~ Inspec-tion Team, I.ibrar~r I]rograrns Ser\rice, U, S. (lo fernment Print-ing office>, Nm’ember 19H6.

‘ ‘hloran, op. cit.. footnote 19, p. S.

. . . the resources required to catalog items andto maintain card catalogs in even a moderate-sized institution are so extensive that librarieshave frequently chosen not to catalog docu-ments in order to contain these costs. f’-’

Whereas previously the combination of tradi-tionally understaffed and low-budget docu-ment departments could not afford the enor-mous cost of cataloging the materials, newtechnologies now allow many to catalog bothnew and retrospective documents.

There are a number of commercial servicesavailable to libraries for cataloging of govern-ment documents, including retrospective ma-terials. For example, Marcive and Brodart pro-vide machine-readable tape, a microfichecatalog, or catalog card set records to deposi-tory libraries. The library identifies by a GPOitem number those documents requiring a rec-ord, and the vendors will supply the record inthe desired format. Vendors are also provid-ing this service for retrospective governmentdocuments. This type of service presents theparticipating institution with new opportun-ities for creating online catalogs of Federal doc-uments, as these tapes can be loaded into alibrary’s local online catalog.’’”

Some GPO cataloging records, particularlyfrom July 1976 to 1984 (when GPO began toinclude corrections made during the Monthl&vCatalog production process), contain errorsthat have not been corrected.” GPO does notgenerate retrospective corrections on theOCLC tapes for users, unlike the Library ofCongress and other Federal library institu-tions. The added expense to a library of iden-

6sRoseann Bowerman and Susan Cad3, “Go\ernrnent P u b -lications in an Online Catalog: A Feasibility Stud~,” fiotern-rnent Publications, December 1984, p. 331,

66Conversation with Judy hl~ers. op. cit., footnote 50.‘;TFor more information, see: LJudj E. Myers, ‘‘The (;o\ern-

ment Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities andProblems, ” Government Information Quarterl~r 2 ( 1985), pp.27-56; Bowerman and Cad~’, op. cit.. footnote 65: Nlary SueStephenson and Gary Purcell, ” Current and Future Directionof Automation Activities for t] ,S. (’, merriment Depvsi~ur~ Col-lections, ” Government Information QuarterI.}r 3 ( 1986), pp. 191-199; and Margaret ,Johnston Powell, Deborah Smith, and EllenConrad, “The Use of OCLC for Cataloging IJ. S. Go\’ernmentPublications, A Feasibility’ Studj, ’ (;ol’ernnlent Public ation.qRe~riem’ ( 1987), pp. 61-76.

146— —.. -—

tifying and correcting a record is quite high–almost $4.50 per corrected record versus $1.40per high-quality record such as those producedtoday. For example, it would cost about $495,000to examine, identify, and correct the 110,000GPO cataloging records at the University ofHouston in order to include these records inthe online catalog. Error-free, the cost of in-clusion in the online catalog would be substan-tially reduced to $154,000G8

At those depositories where online catalogsare being created and/or catalog records arebeing generated, government documents arebecoming more accessible as catalogingrecords are now integrated into the main cat-alog, and “. . . usage rates are going Up. Asearly as 1984, Trinity University noted a 300

“ hIbid, Judy E. Myers.“ S’Discussions, American Library Association Midwinter

Meeting, Jan. 16-19, 1987. There are materials that are still notaccessible through the program; GPO does not catalog all ma-terials it distributes, such as the DOE materials, and there areno plans for creating machine-readable records for those depos-itor-y materials that predate 1976.

percent increase in documents usage oncerecords were included in the circulationsystem .70

In conclusion, the availability of retrospec-tive GPO cataloging tapes and private and not-for-profit vendor services, combined with theincreasing number of technologies in deposi-tory institutions, permits these institutions tocatalog their government documents in a morecost-effective manner. This, in turn, increasesaccess by patrons to government documents.In addition, it also allows these libraries to con-sider machine-readable catalogs. The adventof online catalogs in libraries in the next 5 to10 years will revolutionize government docu-ment collections, as they will allow subjectaccess to these materials by users utilizing elec-tronic capabilities, and integrate the govern-ment information into the rest of the librarycollection.

7“Bowerman and Cady, op. cit., footnote 65, p. 341.

Chapter 7

Alternative Futures for theDepository Library Program

Photo credft ” Documents Center, Robed Woodruff Library, Emory University

Documents librarian assists users with the Documents Center online catalog.

CONTENTS

PageSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................149Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........151Alternative I: Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........151Alternative II: Electronic Depository Library Program . ...............153

A Subalternative for Distributing Electronic Formats. . ..............157Alternative III: Reorganized Electronic Depository System . ...........158Disseminating Electronic Information Products–Two Case Studies . . . . ..160

Congressional Record on CD-ROM . ...............................161Federtd Re~”ster Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........164

Issues Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......171Dissemination Formats in the Depository Program . .................171Changing Costsof the Depository Program . .......................173Reorganized Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............175Changing Rolesof Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..176

TablesTable Page7-l. Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year for Distribution of

7-2

7-37-4

the Bound C’ongz-essional Record to Depository Libraries,Various Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............163Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year for Distributionof theFedera.lRe@ster, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........167Queries and Cost Data for Online Patent Information, 1987.........167Estimated Reproduction and Distribution Costs, PerMagnetic Tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....170

Chapter 7

Alternative Futures for theDepository Library Program

SUMMARYThis chapter discusses several alternative

futures for the U.S. Government Printing Of-fice (GPO) depository library program (DLP)and examines their implications for the depos-itory program and users of Federal informa-tion. The three alternatives considered are:

●

●

●

maintaining the status quo (that is, theprogram as currently operating, exclud-ing most electronic information products);incorporating electronic information prod-ucts into the current depository libraryprogram; andreorganizing the depository program inthe 2- to 10-year time period, to accom-modate electronic formats and the adop-tion of current and emerging informationtechnologies by libraries.l

Included in this chapter are case studies of elec-tronic delivery oft wo data files—the Congres-sional Record and Federal Register. This chap-ter also discusses several key issues concerningthe future of the DLP.

In 1962, Congress revised the laws relatingto the depository program. Throughout thehearings and debate on the proposed legisla-tion, Members and those testifying noted the“vital role” of the depository program in thedissemination of government information tothe American people. One of the revisions ac-cepted by Members was a provision to extendto the depositories access to additionalgovernment-produced materials, and Membersnoted that “. . . the Subcommittee on the Li-

1 Throughout this Chapter D PI. refers onl}r to the U.S. (~ ov-ernment Printing Office depository librar~.”program; and thereorganized DLP alternative is based in part on the proposaldeveloped by the Association of Research Libraries Task Forceon Government Information in Electronic Format. For moreinformation see: Association of Research Libraries, Technol-ogy & U.S. Government Information Poh”cies: Catalwvsts for NewPartnerships (J4’ashington, DC: ARL, October 1987).

brary considers . . . the expanded availabilityof documents to those depository libraries asabsolutely essential if the purpose intended byCongress in the establishment of the originalprogram is to continue to be served.’” Thedebate today concerns not only additional ma-terials but additional formats, and whether in-cluding electronic formats is consistent withthe legislative history and statutory author-ity of the 1962 act.

With the increasing number of electronic dis-semination projects in agencies as well as re-lated private sector offerings, the impetus forincluding electronic information in the depos-itory program is strong. Electronic productsenhance access to many types of information,and failure to include these products withinthe depository library program could createor exacerbate inequities in public access to suchinformation. The Joint Committee on Print-ing (JCP) has interpreted provisions of Title44 of the United States Code as extending togovernment information in all formats and hasendorsed pilot and demonstration tests and de-livery of government information products inelectronic formats. The Subcommittee on Leg-islative, Committee on House Appropriations,has approved the distribution of CD-ROMs todepository libraries. Thus, it seems clear thatsome electronic products will be included inthe depository program. However, the num-ber and types of products are likely to be quitelimited, in the absence of further congressionalguidance, since at present GPO is not empow-ered to require agencies to submit their elec-tronic products for depository distribution.Thus, without further policy action, erosion of

IU. S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,Revising the I.a ws Relating to Depositor?’ Libraries. Senate Re-port No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962,p. 25.

149

150-—

public access to government information viathe depository libraries is likely to continue.

OTA has also concluded that the likely intro-duction of electronic information to the deposi-tory library program may require an examina-tion of the current structure of the program andthe nature of the relationships between deposi-tory participants and the government. Commit-tees of Congress, member libraries, and GPO willneed to assess the current organizational struc-ture and operation of the depository library pro-gram and determine if it is the most effectiveand efficient system for users to access govern-ment information. Pilot projects and the like willprovide useful information regarding user infor-mation needs, financial costs, administrative re-quirements, and levels of usage. These pilots willalso assist the committees, GPO, and memberinstitutions in designing new delivery andfinancing arrangements, particularly in lightof the evolving nature of both libraries and thetelecommunications infrastructure.

An important reason for electronic demon-stration projects is to better understand theissue of costs to users, to government, and todepository institutions. If the basic underlyingprinciple of the depository program is to retainfree access to government information for users,then Congress needs to appreciate that theremay be additional costs associated with the in-troduction of certain electronic services, and Con-gress may have to assist depository libraries andGPO in designing and financing ways to makethis information available to the public. Casestudies of two electronic data files, the finalor bound Congressional Record in CD-ROMformat and the Federal Re~”ster online, are presented to illustrate possible delivery modes andcosts.

Distribution of selected government infor-mation products in CD-ROM format such asthe bound or final cumulated edition of the Con-gressional Record could improve access to suchinformation, and could be a cost-effective dis-semination mechanism for the Library Pro-grams Service (LPS) for certain data files.There could be some additional equipment andtraining costs associated with this format for

the depository library participants. There willbe a need to periodically review depository li-brary policies as new formats are added, espe-cially since budgetary constraints are not likelyto permit multiple formats for many govern-ment information products. Difficult decisionswill need to be made about which formats forthe different products should be distributedto depository libraries.

In the longer-term, Congress may wish toconsider a reorganization or restructuring ofthe current depository program in light of elec-tronic information dissemination options nowor likely to become available. This assumesthat there is a fundamental need to reorganizethe depository program to account for changesin how users access information and how li-braries provide information to users. A reor-ganized depository program presumably wouldincorporate the ‘lessons learned’ from the pi-lot projects and demonstrations. To this end,the pilots and other resource-sharing projectswould assist depository librarians, GPO, theJCP, and other congressional committees indiscussing and redesigning the current struc-ture of the depository program to best servethe end-user—the public. Other issues, suchas how best to serve the needs of rural usersof government information and whether thedepository program should remain within GPOor be moved elsewhere (e.g., to the Library ofCongress), also could be examined during thereorganization discussions.

In the final section of this chapter, fourclosely related policy issues are examined.These issues concern the need for developinga clear information policy on access to govern-ment information in electronic format throughdepository libraries. In formulating policy itwill be important to consider the following specific questions or issues:

● Should government information in all elec-tronic formats be disseminated to the pub-lic through the depository library program?

Are the principles of free access still appli-cable to the depository program, or arethere new costs associated with the intro-duction of electronically formatted prod-

151—

ucts such that user fees or new funding ●

mechanisms need to be considered?Can the current depository system accom-modate new responsibilities for electronicformats or should a new institutionalstructure be considered? and

Does the increasing shift to electronicallyformatted information require a reexami-nation of the composition and relation-ships of the stakeholders in the depositoryprogram, and especially the role of the in-formation industry?

INTRODUCTION

The first three major sections of this chap-ter explore three possible alternatives for thedepository library program. These are main-taining the status quo, establishing an elec-tronic depository library program, and devel-oping a long-term, reorganized electronicdepository library program based on new andemerging technologies and the changing na-ture of libraries and information needs of users.

The analysis of the alternatives and theirpossible implications is intended to facilitatean understanding of the possible choices avail-able to policy makers. The three alternativesare presented and evaluated in some detail. Inevaluating the alternatives, the effects of pro-posed changes resulting from the use of newtechnologies are given considerable attention.

Each of the alternatives is structured interms of the five main functions of the LibraryPrograms Service (LPS):

ALTERNATIVE

The status quo is defined as a continuationof the current roles and activities of the DLPas described in chapter 6. The discussion be-low assumes that no major congressional orexecutive actions are taken for the next fewyears and:

●

●

GPO disseminates information in paperand microfiche formats with a few CD-ROMS and a few online files; and

depository libraries receive informationfrom Federal agencies in paper and micro-fiche formats with few electronic formats.

1.2.3.4.5.

acquisition of materials;classification of materials;cataloging of materials;distribution of materials;monitoring of member depositories.

The discussion of monitoring includes consid-eration of internal LPS operations and is pre-sented from the perspective of the quality oflibrary service and access to Federal infor-mation.

The fourth section in this chapter discussesthe possible dissemination of two data files tothe depository libraries in electronic formats—the bound Congressional Record in CD-ROMformat, and the Federal Register online. Fi-nally, the fifth and last section in this chapterdiscusses four key issues relevant to the fu-ture of the DLP.

I: STATUS QUO

DLP, within the Superintendent of Docu-ments (SupDocs) at GPO, would continue todistribute government documents to approx-imately 1,400 participating depository insti-tutions. The amount of government informa-tion that should belong in the program isprojected to increase, but the actual amountdistributed would probably decrease for tworeasons—agencies failing to place paper doc-uments in the program (fugitive documents),and an increase in the percentage of electronicproducts falling outside the program. The de-centralized practice of agencies shipping ma-terials directly to participating depository in-

152

stitutions would likely increase, as in the caseof Department of Energy and Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission agreementsthat are typical of arrangements between GPO,libraries, and the agencies (see ch. 6 for moreinformation).

Classification of materials. There would beno changes in or effects on the classificationof materials.

Cataloging of materials. There would be nochanges in the cataloging of materials.

Distribution of materials. The bulk of gov-ernment documents distributed to depositorylibraries would continue to be in microform for-mat. Dual format (paper and microfiche) wouldcontinue for selected congressional and execu-tive branch materials. GPO and the librarycommunity would likely revisit the debate overthe choice and cost issues raised by dualformat.

The Superintendent of Documents wouldmaintain the practice of selling GPO tapes tovendors at a nominal fee. Neither these tapesnor the bulk of electronically-formatted mate-rials from other government agencies wouldbe distributed to depository institutions (ex-cept for a few CD-ROMs and online products).Depository institutions in need of electroni-cally-formatted information would presumablypurchase this information from vendors orthrough other arrangements directly with theagencies, for example, Bureau of the Censusor National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Monitoring of the member institutions and ef-fectiveness of the program. The budget of theLPS would likely remain relatively constant.If Federal agencies move away from GPO serv-ices (for whatever reasons, such as an increasein electronic products in lieu of paper) and, asa consequence, fewer government documentswere available to the Sales Program, the GPOsales could be reduced. This could in turn af-fect the amount of monies redirected from netsales revenues to LPS to partially reduce theneed for appropriated funds.

The LPS Information Technology Program(ITP) was established in the summer of 1987

with a charter to initiate agency electronic pi-lot projects for the depository program. How-ever, no monies were appropriated by Congressfor this program. The program focus insteadhas been on internal operations, such as auto-mated shipping lists, a claims-processing sys-tem, and other microcomputer-based systemsin support of LPS operations. Additional stafftime has been spent gathering information onother agency electronic information programsand a few electronic projects such as theCensus Disk. Over the next few years, underthe status quo alternative, the role of ITP withrespect to dissemination of electronic formatswould continue to be limited.

The ability of LPS to accomplish its missionwould be eroded to the degree that:

●

●

●

electronically-formatted government in-formation was unavailable to the publicthrough the depository program;the agencies became even more dependenton NTIS rather than GPO/SupDocs as adissemination mechanism for electronicproducts; andthe agencies relied on contractors, inter-agency agreements, or private sector ar-rangements rather than GPO for elec-tronic dissemination in general.

Although the number of selective depositoryinstitutions in the program would likely in-crease, several regional libraries (those librariesreceiving and permanently maintaining all gov-ernment documents) would likely drop mem-bership in the depository program (as is hap-pening currently). The increase in membershipof selective depositories would be due to theminimum selection requirement that allowsparticipating institutions to select only thosegovernment documents as appropriate fortheir patrons. The decline in the number of re-gional depositories would be attributed to thegrowing amount of government informationthat would need to be maintained permanentlyand the escalating costs of participation.

As GPO’s role diminished, the role of the pri-vate sector in the provision of government in-formation to the public would likely expand.An increasing percentage of information in

.

electronic formats would be available onlythrough private vendors. Depositories wouldhave two choices: either pay vendors for gov-ernment information not available through thedepository program or directly from agencies,or not provide direct access to these materialsfor their patrons.’ The costs to member de-positories would increase and continue to riseas agencies moved to greater reliance upon elec-tronic formats and private sector services. Thecosts to those depositories opting to provideaccess would continually rise as agenciesmoved to greater reliance upon electronic for-mats and private sector services. Also, depos-itories could incur increased costs for onlinesearching and additional reference services tothe extent that librarians and informationspecialists needed to check a greater numberof sources for government information. Region-als could face additional costs to the extentthat selective depository institutions were un-able to provide specific information to patronsand as a result referred inquiries to the regionallibraries.

Under the status quo alternative, public ac-cess to government information via depositorylibraries would likely be continually eroded andreduced. Equity of access would be adverselyaffected to the extent that patrons of deposi-tory institutions would have to pay for accessto government information. Also, many of theagency electronic information products could

‘Not all government information in electronic format wouldbe available through private sector services, since some or manytypes of information would not be expected to produce mone-tary benefits for vendors. This information could be permanentlylost to the public.

153— .

be more difficult for patrons to locate. To thedegree that depository library users were de-nied effective access to enhanced electronic ver-sions of core governmental process informa-tion such as the Congressional Record, equityof access would be further reduced. As statedby Frantzich:

The current hard copy version of the Rec-ord is particularly inflexible. While users gen-erally want a full picture of a debate on a par-ticular subject or the actions of a particularMember, these are scattered throughout thetext and over a number of different docu-ments. The ability to use new technology to“cut and paste” a tailored document wouldgreatly increase the usability of the materialin the Record.4

Under this alternative, overall governmentcosts would likely increase since governmentat all levels (including Federal as well as Stateand local depository libraries) would not be re-ceiving needed Federal information throughthe depository program and would have tomaintain it through other more expensivemeans.

Under the status quo, with a greater num-ber of agency information products availablein electronic formats, GPO would be unableto comply fully with a legislative mandate ofproviding access to government informationto the public through the depository libraryprogram.

‘Stephen Frantzich, “Public Access to Congressional Infor-mation in the Technological Age: Case Studies. Draft OTAcontractor report, OTA, September 1987, pp. 50-51.

ALTERNATIVE II: ELECTRONIC DEPOSITORYLIBRARY PROGRAM

This alternative assumes that the existing ●

DLP would be extended to include governmentinformation products in electronic formats aswell as paper and microfiche. The program ●

would be managed as it is now. In addition,this alternative assumes that GPO would serveas the disseminating agency for the depositoryprogram, and:

each depository would select the type andnumber of formats; and

OMB WOLIM issue a circular requiring

agencies to comply with the depositoryprogram for all government informationregardless of format (within current ac-cepted guidelines for those materials that

154

are not confidential, administrative, or forinternal use).

Under this alternative, the Superintendentof Documents would approve the inclusion ofelectronic products from Federal agencies fordissemination to depository institutions, inaddition to paper and microfiche products. Un-der this alternative, it is likely that microfichewould still account for the bulk of productswithin the program. Dual format would prob-ably continue for a minimum number of prod-ucts, and fewer paper documents would beavailable to member institutions. LPS wouldbe able to provide a choice of files in a varietyof formats to members of the program, butthese files would not always be available in allformats.

This alternative could have the following ef-fects on the five major functions of LPS.

Acquisition of materials. Many of the currentprocedures for acquiring materials would con-tinue. GPO would receive tapes, disks, or dis-kettes from the issuing agency, duplicate thenew media in-house or via a contractor, or de-positories would receive the materials directlyfrom the agency or an agency contractor pur-suant to an interagency agreement.

The information format would require indi-vidual decisions by the agencies and GPO todetermine if GPO would operate in a centrali-zed or decentralized mode. For example, a datafile developed by or for an agency could be re-ceived by the depository via GPO, from theissuing agency directly, or from an agency con-tractor. This data tape could also be a “raw”data tape or one with “value-added” softwareincluded. Each mode of delivery to the deposi-tories and each format has advantages and dis-advantages to the program, the participatinginstitutions, and the agencies. Thus, it couldbe more advantageous for libraries to workdirectly with the Bureau of the Census for cer-tain data tapes. This could require additionalinfrastructure within agencies where theamount of electronically formatted informa-tion is significant. Another example would beCD-ROMs of the bound Congressional Recordor of Bureau of the Census materials, where

it might be more advantageous for GPO to shipthe CD-ROMs directly to the depositories.

Classification of materials. The introductionof electronically formatted materials shouldnot require any significant changes in currentLPS classification procedures. The format type–paper, microfiche, CD-ROM disk, diskette,or online tape—would need to be noted as itis now. It would be necessary for the originat-ing agencies to clearly define the source andnature of the electronic material so it can beproperly classified and assigned a correctnumber.

Cataloging of materials. GPO employsAACR-2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules),the accepted standard for cataloging developedby the library community. The cataloging ofnew media is already an accepted practice inthe library community. GPO’s integration ofnew media into the depository program wouldrequire training of LPS cataloging staff andinformational assistance to depository insti-tutions to make library catalogers aware of thechanges in format. GPO has developed Cata-loging Guidelines that describe preferred rou-tines for inputting records into the Online Com-puter Library Center (OCLC), use of AACR-2,serials procedures, and the like. GPO wouldbe required to update these guidelines to in-clude procedures for handling electronicformats.

Distribution of new materials. Overall, thecurrent distribution procedures would remainwith some modification for materials in an on-line format. Diskettes and CD-ROMS wouldpresent few, if any, new distribution problemsto LPS. However, distribution of online datafiles could present a variety of problems, de-pending on whether the mode of operation wascentralized or decentralized.

The addition of electronic formats might af-fect the selectivity of the depositories. Depos-itory institutions are becoming increasinglyselective in the number of and kind of govern-ment information products they receive. Theinclusion of electronic products in the programwould not change this trend, and might evenincrease selectivity. As with paper and micro-

fiche, librarians would need to examine the gov-ernment materials available in electronic for-mat and explore the choices for their- patrons.Whereas the initial cost of adding a documentin microfiche is minimal (not counting the costsof storage and maintenance), the cost of equip-ment and software development for electronicformats could be higher, at least initially. Withelectronic formats, depositories would havenew choices to make concerning the informa-tion needs of users.

Monitoring of member institutions and effec-tiveness of the program (as it relates to qual-ity of service and access). The introduction ofelectronic files to the depository program andto GPO would require the development of ad-ditional GPO in-house expertise in informationtechnologies. For example, GPO could contractfor the mastering and production of CD-ROMs,produce CD-ROMs in-house (equipment per-mitting), or obtain the necessary number ofCD-ROMs from the agencies. Regardless of thechoice, an overall understanding of CD-ROMtechnology, production, and use would beneeded to ensure an effective program.

The Information Technology Program (ITP)would need to be expanded. The new respon-sibilities of this office could include develop-ment of training programs for depository li-braries that focus on equipment purchases, useof new electronic services, and awareness ofelectronic information products available fromthe government. This training component wouldbe critical to the success of this alternative, andwould require increased funding.

Overall, large institutions such as the Asso-ciation of Research Libraries (ARL) members,academic institutions, and State libraries(which collectively account for over 50 per centof the depositories) would be better preparedthan smaller institutions to accept productsin electronic format. These institutions alreadyhave much of the needed equipment and on-going training programs for staff. Acceptanceof electronic products probably would beslower at smaller institutions, primarily dueto lack of necessary equipment, training, andan adequate financial base. The GAO Survey

155

of Federal Information Users noted a grow-ing technology base in depository institutions.If GPO were to provide electronically format-ted materials, it is likely that more and moredepositories would, over time, invest in neededequipment just as they did for microfiche.

Each depository institution would be in adifferent stage of development concerning theuse of information technologies in support ofdepository library programs. For example,many university libraries already have CD-ROM equipment, whereas many smaller librar-ies do not. On the other hand, CD-ROM tech-nology is inexpensive, very user-friendly, andrequires minimal staff and user training. Itdoes, though, require some training and knowl-edge in order to use different software pack-ages effectively.

A determination would need to be made onwhat kind and level of support GPO shouldprovide including, costs and other implications.For example, GPO could offer the depository

libraries a series of comprehensive seminarson equipment and training, and/or form a teamof information technology consultants similarto the current depository inspectors. This teamwould assist member institutions introduceelectronic formats to the library staff andusers.

Congress could consider a one-time equip-ment grant for depository library CD-ROMequipment but would need to address stand-ardization issues. Depository participants andGPO are likely to be unable to regularly up-grade their CD-ROMs (for financial constraintsalone), yet, at the same time, CD-ROM tech-nologies are constantly changing (both hard-ware and software capabilities). One possibleside effect of an equipment grant, if made,would be to encourage and accelerate standard-setting, since the government would be buy-ing for up to 1,400 institutions.

Some reconsideration of retention policieswou[d be necessary with the introduction ofelectronic files. These new policies would beapplicable to regional depositories that are nowrequired to retain all government materials per-manently. There are over 50 regional institu-

156-.

tions—a mix of public and private institutionsand academic, public, and State libraries. Stor-age guidelines for new formats at these insti-tutions, particularly for online files, would bean issue if the old requirements were retained.The two key issues that would need to be ad-dressed would be the development of guide-lines for online storage, and the developmentof guidelines regarding the costs to regionalsfor provision of online information to other in-stitutions.

A new institutional structure for the depos-itory program is evolving with the emergenceof a set of “supra” regionals. The role of someregional depositories has developed into oneof providing service support to other deposi-tories, including staff time and equipment.Also, some regional institutions do not houseall government materials received, but insteadassume responsibility for these documentsregardless of the location. This change hasoccurred due to increased cooperation amongmembers, with “statewide” institutions ex-panding their participation. There are a num-ber of advantages to this emerging structure:

●

●

●

●

increased integration of government doc-uments into library collections,greater resource sharing,spreading out the “burden” of the serv-ice support functions and costs, andimproved flexibility of storage re-quirements.

This growth in cooperation and flexibilitywithin the depository system is very impor-tant and should be beneficial as the amountof electronic information increases.5

Other impacts of Alternative II. Under Alter-native II, there could be substantial savingsin GPO production and distribution costs ifmore government information products wereavailable in CD-ROM format and not producedin paper and microfiche (e.g., for certain Bu-reau of the Census materials). There could beadditional costs incurred depending on thenumber of products distributed in an onlineformat as this format can be more expensive.

“Based on discussions with GPO, LPS staff, November 1987.

There would be some reduction in other cur-rent costs, such as for storage of paper andmicrofiche. For example, the cost of microfichecabinets is very high-$3,000 per year, includ-ing maintenance and space considerations—and the reduction in the amount of microfichecould be a benefit to regional depository insti-tutions.

All depository institutions that accept elec-tronically formatted products might face ad-ditional costs from participating in the pro-gram. These costs would result from one ormore of the following: 1) staff training, 2) equip-ment purchase (beyond that possibly providedby GPO, 3) costs of online searching, 4) localmounting and/ or downloading of governmentinformation, and 5) increased user support. Thespecific electronic format would affect the levelof costs to the user, the library, or the govern-ment. For example, providing the Congres-sional Record retrospectively on a CD-ROMdisk to all depository institutions (if masteredby GPO, replicated by a contractor, and dis-tributed by the depository program), wouldlikely impose some additional financial respon-sibilities on depositories and actually reducecosts to the government if provided in lieu ofpaper or microfiche. However, access to anagency online data file might involve additionalcosts to the depositories and/or the govern-ment when telecommunication costs are fac-tored in.

Some regional depositories would face addi-tional financial burdens, and some depositoriesmight reconsider membership as the costs ofresource-sharing increased. An increasingnumber of depositories not receiving certainelectronic files might turn to the regional de-pository libraries for that information. If thisoccurred, it could be difficult for these regionallibraries to maintain policies of free access togovernment information.

Under alternative II, overall access to gov-ernment information would be expected to im-prove. But access would be enhanced only ifdepository libraries could accommodate andsupport electronic formats and develop re-source-sharing procedures for those libraries

157—

that did not have the necessary technologies,funding, and training within a State or region.

This alternative would increase the need forclarification of the roles and legal authoritiesof GPO, the depositories, and the agencies.Agencies presumably would be required to pro-vide electronically formatted information tothe depository program. Clear guidelines andpossibly legislation would be necessary.

A Subalternative for DistributingElectronic Formats

A subalternative of Alternative II wouldmake selected electronic products available tospecified depositories not via GPO but via anagreement with private sector or not-for-profitservices. The Public Printer has previously pro-posed a pilot project whereby private sectorand not-for-profit services would disseminateselected government generated tapes to a sub-set of depository libraries at little or no costto the government.h The private sector serv-ice would add value to five suggested data-bases: congressional bills, Congress~onal Rec-ord, Federal Register, Code of FederalRegulations, and the Monthly Catalog ofUm”ted States Government Publications, in re-turn for free receipt of the tapes. The privatesector service would be required to accept allfive tapes, because the total value of the fivetapes would provide increased access for usersand increased value to the vendor. The costof the tapes would be debited to the deposi-tory program.

For this or similar proposals to be seriouslyconsidered, a number of issues would requireclarification. For example:

● GPO would need to determine a level ofpublic access to the electronic informationthat would be considered viable and appr~priate. Would the combined value of thetapes minus the va.badded costs providea sufficient level of access to the publicand sufficient incentive to the vendors?

61.etter from Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, toHonorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, tJoint Committee onPrinting, Dec. 10, 1987.

● GPO would need to design criteria forselection of library participants. Telecom-munications permit access to online infor-mation regardless of geographic location,so geographical concerns need not limitthe libraries selected. The type of library,the facilities, equipment and training pro-grams in the library, and the networkingcapabilities to other depositories are ex-amples of criteria or factors that could beemployed by GPO to select participants.

● GPO would need to specify the responsi-bility of participating libraries regardingthe need to maintain paper and microfichecopies of these data files to guarantee ac-cess to government information, and forarchival purposes.

● GPO would need some assurance (on be-half of all participants) of length and levelof commitment by the vendor, and thevendor would require some assurance asto the commitment by GPO to the con-tinuation of this program. For example,would this be a pilot project or a programthat would seek congressional endorse-ment and financial support for, say, thenext 3 years?

● For an option such as this to be success-ful, the vendor would likely already haveconsiderable market share in one or sev-eral of the data files and within the librarycommunity.

● The value of the duplicated tapes and the“charge” against the depository programwould need to be factored into the overallcosts of the program.

A determination of proprietary rights inthe ‘value added’ information and ensu-ing use by libraries would be necessary.

● Previous “barter” agreements betweenagencies and private sector services gen-erally have been unsuccessful, and con-gressional committees with relevant juris-diction generally have not supportedprojects of this nature. Congressional con-cerns would need to be alleviated prior toimplementation of such a proposal.

Arrangements concerning telecommuni-cations charges and the like would needto be specified.

158.—— —

Under this subalternative, public access togovernment information would appear to in-crease. Electronic information would be avail-able to the depositories at little or no immedi-ate cost to participating institutions. Someinsight would be gained concerning usagelevels and the overall costs that would be asso-ciated with a larger electronic program. Therewould be minimal costs to government, at leastat the outset.

There are also disadvantages associated withthis subaltemative. With the pilot project, onlya selected number of libraries would partici-pate and even those would have only a mini-mum level of access. It is unclear whether andunder what conditions this suba.lternativecould be extended to all depository libraries.The costs to the government while minimalwith the pilot project would increase substan-tially over time as the number and types offiles expanded. The question of proprietary

rights in the value added by vendors wouldneed to be addressed. Should or could theserights be waived, or should restrictions on pub- lic use of such value added information be ac-cepted? Any restrictions could adversely af-fect the ability of libraries to share thisinformation with other depositories and users.Overall, this subalternative would change thecurrent relationships between the governmentand the depository libraries. Congress, GPO,and the libraries would need to consider care-fully the implications of including new “part-ners’ in the depository library program. Fi-nally, barter-type arrangements such as thissuba.lternative have not been successful inother agencies, for example, the Patent andTrademark Office (PTO) and the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC). Another possi-bility would be for the government to simplypay the vendor for services rendered at a bulkdiscount rate.

ALTERNATIVE III: REORGANIZED ELECTRONICDEPOSITORY SYSTEM

This alternative presents one of many pos- ●

sible future directions for the depository pro-gram once electronic pilots have commencedand user needs, usage patterns, and cost fac-tors are more fully understood. This alterna-tive seeks to describe a longer-term reorganizedview of the LPS incorporating current andemerging technologies and reflecting the ●

changing roles of libraries. The compositionof participating libraries could be reviewed andreorganized, consistent with meeting userneeds and optimizing use of resources. Thisalternative is based on the recent Associationof Research Libraries (ARL) proposal for res-tructuring the depository program. This pro-posal has been put forth by the ARL TaskForce on Government Information in Elec- ●

tronic Format for discussion purposes only.The ARL proposal defines a three-tiered sys-tem of libraries and library responsibilities.Three new levels of service would be desig-nated: Basic, Intermediate, and Full:

Basic Service–libraries with small gov-ernment document collections and gate-way access to electronic information lo-cated elsewhere. Basic service would becharacterized by self-help, on-demandservice, and high cost per transaction, butsmall fixed cost.Intermediate Service—libraries with alarger government document collection,including some electronic information andgateway access to other electronic infor-mation located elsewhere. Intermediateservice would be characterized by somevah.wadded information development andincreased mediation between informationresources and information users.Full Service—libraries with a completegovernment document collections and afull range of electronic information andgateways to other resources. Full servicewould be characterized by support from“related, locally available databases, ”

159

value-added services, development of soft-ware packages and similar “approacheswhich would change wholesale Govern-ment information into retail Governmentinformation, higher fixed costs, andlower per transaction costs.7

Under this alternative, LPS would continueto distribute government information to par-ticipating institutions. Electronic productsfrom Federal agencies would be included in thedepository program (and the Monthly Cata-log of United States Government Publications)in addition to paper and microfiche products.Dual format would continue for a minimumnumber of products. Microfiche would prob-ably continue to account for the bulk of mate-rials in the program. LPS would be able to pro-vide a choice of files in a number of formats,but these files would not always be availablein all formats. The full-resource institutionswould be assuming many new responsibilities,for example, local mounting of tape files. Thenew focus would be on the ability to access in-formation as required from a host of availableresources. With the reorganized structure LPS:

would not require the same amount ofprinted or microfiche products from GPO;would need to expand the functions oft heITP;would determine with depository institu-tions the “core” collection for basic andintermediate services; andwould work closely with depository mem-bers in developing criteria and infrastruc-ture for the reorganized system.

Acquisition of Materials. Most of the currentprocedures for acquisition of materials wouldremain in effect. The discussion in AlternativeII would apply to this alternative.

Classification of Materials. The previous dis-cussion of Alternative I I would apply to thisreorganized electronic alternative. LPS and theintermediate-and full-service depositories couldconsider the value of devising a system where-by LPS would be notified of any value-addedproducts, software products, or the like cre-

‘Association of Research Libraries. op. cit., footnote 1, p. 22.

ated by a member institution. LPS would then,in turn, notify other participants in the pro-gram (e.g., through Administrative Notes) thatthe products were available. The depositoryinstitutions could also rely on other networksand bulletin boards to convey this information.

Cataloging of Materials. The cataloging dis-cussion found in the previous section wouldapply to this reorganized electronic option.

Distribution of New Materials. In addition tothe distribution mechanisms discussed in theprevious section, a core collection of materi-als for basic and intermediate levels of servicewould need to be developed by LPS in concertwith the depository institutions. Distributionsystems or new resource-sharing proceduresbetween basic, intermediate, and full servicelibraries would need to be developed by par-ticipating institutions and the LPS. These pro-cedures would include a description of theresponsibilities of each service level, financialobligations, interlibrary loan procedures, andthe like. ITP could be responsible for assist-ing intermediate-and full-service institutionswith new technological applications, and pro-viding current information on activities in Fed-eral agencies, such as the development of newelectronic information products and appli-cations.

Monitoring of member institutions and effec-tiveness of the program (as it relates to qual-ity of service and access). Most of the new tasksnoted in the previous discussion of Alterna-tive II would apply here as well—the expan-sion of ITP to assist libraries in choice of for-mats, technological applications, and liaisonwith other Federal agencies; new retention pol-icies for electronic formats; and the possibleprovision of CD-ROM equipment. Overall, pol-icies for bibliographic searching, cooperativeacquisition, interlibrary loan, document deliv-ery services, reciprocal borrowing privileges,referral and reference services, and the stor-age and preservation of government materi-als would need to be modified or created.

The establishment of a new infrastructurefor the depository program would probably re-quire changes in the monitoring responsibili-

160

ties of LPS. Depository members and GPO to-gether would need to define the goals andobjectives of the new system, define theresponsibilities of each level of service, and de-fine the responsibilities of GPO and an over-all framework for monitoring performance ofthe depository program. The current systememployed in a number of regions, whereby re-gional depositories have assumed some respon-sibilities for the level of service in their regionor State, might be applicable in the new sys-tem. In this instance, full service libraries wouldwith intermediate libraries assist new librarieswishing to join the depository system andwould regularly evaluate the services neededand those already provided for the region.

The depository institutions would need toconsider carefully which level of service underthe reorganized system would best serve theirorganization and patrons. There is a wide var-iance in technological sophistication among thelibraries in the current depository system. Thesame variance would be evident in a reorgan-ized system, and many libraries would not becapable of providing “gateway” services with-out guidance and support from affiliated de-pository members. The reorganized structurewould likely streamline the current programand permit the development of a network orsystem of depository institutions, recognizingthat there is a need for different levels ofservice.

Other impacts of Alternative III. It is diffi-cult to determine if there would be savings togovernment under this alternative, withoutdetailed cost-benefit studies. Reducing distri-bution of paper and microfiche would savemoney. However, there would be transitioncosts as well as new equipment and trainingcosts (e.g. resulting in the shifting of fundsfrom distribution functions to ITP withinLPS).

Access to government information would beimproved under this alternative. A reorganizedelectronic program would: 1) facilitate accessto print-based materials and electronic infor-mation, 2) expand and improve access to a hostof online information services and products,and 3) encourage a new level of sophisticatedmanipulation of information electronically(government and nongovernment information).The reorganized structure would permit an in-formation network to develop among deposi-tories, allowing for increased efficiency and ac-cess to information resources on a national,State, and local scale.

This alternative would increase the need forclarification of the roles and legal authoritiesof GPO, the depositories, and the agencies.Agencies presumably would be required to pro-vide electronically formatted information tothe depository program. Clear guidelines andpossibly legislation would be necessary.

DISSEMINATING ELECTRONIC INFORMATIONPRODUCTS–TWO CASE STUDIES

The previous sections examined three pos- Register online. These files were selected forsible alternatives for the depository library several reasons. First, the Congressional Rec-program: maintenance of the status quo, an ord and the Federal Register represent coreelectronic depository library program, and a or process government information. Second,reorganized electronic depository library sys- these files: have been identified by depositorytern. This section will examine two formats (on- librarians as useful and/or desirable in elec-line and CD-ROM) and delivery mechanisms tronic format; are extremely popular with highfor specific government data files as test or regular usage; and are files found in mostprojects for disseminating electronic formats depositories. Third, providing these files inthrough the DLP. The data files described are electronic formats clearly improves and en-the Congressional Record in CD-ROM format hances public access, and in some cases time-for the bound, cumulated file, and the Federal liness, compared to paper and microfiche for-

mats. The bound or final Congressional Recordin CD-ROM format and the Federal Registeronline could be made available to depositoriesas described in Alternatives II or III. Finally,the JCP recently announced that the boundRecord will be available on CD-ROM throughGPO.

Congressional Record on CD-ROM

In the 1983 Ad Hoc Committee on Deposi-tory Library Access to Federal AutomatedDatabases survey of depository institutions,depository librarians identified the Congres-sional Record as a key data file which, if avail-able in electronic format, would enhance ac-cess by patrons to government information.The Congressional Record is received by mostdepositories, is currently available in paper ormicrofiche (dual format) from GPO, and isavailable online for a fee through several com-mercial vendors.

The Congressional Record contains the dailyrecord of House and Senate floor proceedingsas well as schedules of other congressionalactivities and actions. A new Record isproduced nightly and is available to the pub-lic the following morning. It has been statedthat, “a distinguishing feature of the Recordis its timeliness."8 GPO receives schedulinginformation, prepared remarks and insertsfrom Members, floor debate transcripts, billtexts, and other documents and melds this ma-terial into a 200-to 300-page document everynight that Congress is in session.

The material is accepted by GPO in numer-ous formats (electronic, printed, and hand-written) which are then entered in the data-base by GPO staff. This new electronic ver-sion is used to produce the printing plates forthe printing of the Congressional Record inhard copy.9 The electronic database in theform of magnetic computer tapes is correctedand then made available for purchase throughthe Superintendent of Documents within 24

‘Frantzich, op. cit., footnote 4,‘Due to time constraints of the printing process, errors in the

electronic tapes are not corrected immediately. For more infor-mation see Frantzich, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 35.

to 72 hours after the printing of each Record.A number of vendors acquire these tapes fromthe GPO, add value to the existing version,and sell this enhanced information to clients.A yearly subscription to the CongressionalRecord tape service costs $29,300, and eachtape can be purchased for $175. Microfiche co-pies of the Record are produced by a GPO con-tractor and are then distributed by GPO. Thesemicrofiche copies are not available as quicklyas either the paper or electronic formats.

The Congressional Record is recorrected andnew printing plates are created to produce thebound, permanent copy or final edition of theCongressional Record. The bound Record is anumber of years behind. The most recentbound volumes published cover 1982 (volume128) and 1985 (volume 131), with current ef-forts focused on 1983, 1984, and 1986. Themost current index available is for 1980. The1981 index is in production and expected in1988; the 1982 index is scheduled for comple-tion in late 1988. The cumulated, final, boundCongressional Record represents the only cor-rected edition of the Record and is importantfor archival, historical, and sometimes legalpurposes. (For more information on the issuesrelating to the Record, see ch. 8.)

Bound Congressional Record on CD-ROMThere are a number of possible options for

mastering and replicating a CD-ROM disk ofthe bound Record; for example, by GPO, bya commercial vendor, or by a combination ofthe two. Several new internal production stepswill be necessary to produce a disk. Once com-plete, the yearly cumulative CongressionalRecord on CD-ROM, produced either by GPOor a contractor, could then be shipped to thedepositories through normal distribution chan-nels. The disk could also be available throughthe Superintendent of Documents for a fee (theusual cost plus 50 per cent).

The corrected daily Record tapes producedby the GPO Office of Information ResourcesManagement will be the digitized data usedfor the creation of the CD-ROM. GPO man-agement is currently considering the lease of

162—

a CD Publisher system that is capable of recon-figuring (reindexing) a file structure and pre-paring the file for one or more disks. This filewould then be ready for a contractor to mas-ter and replicate CD-ROMs for GPO distribu-tion to the depository libraries and/or salethrough the Superintendent of Documents.10

GPO management has determined that GPOstaff will not develop the needed retrieval soft-ware itself, but will purchase the software froma vendor. Producing the software on CD-ROMmay eliminate the need for a separate indexto the Record because of the search and re-trieval capabilities inherent in CD-ROM soft-ware. On the other hand, it is also argued thatthere may be the need for both the Congres-sional Record Index and the CD-ROM searchand retrieval software because the index pro-vides additional reference points and “humanjudgment” not found in the software.

The average amount of data in the Recordper year is: 37,594 pages representing over 500million bytes of information (for 1985 as a sam-ple year). These figures do not include an in-dex to the bound version. GPO is consideringmany possibilities. Two under considerationare: one year, one volume of the bound versionof the Record, without the index, plus re-quired/necessary software on one CD-ROM;and one year of the Record on one CD-ROM,plus a floppy disk that would contain the soft-ware for accessing and manipulating the dataresiding on the CD-ROM. Because GPO hasnot developed such a disk before, staff are un-certain as to the amount of data that can fiton the disk and what constitutes the “best”approach.

Certain crosscutting criteria can be appliedto each data file and delivery mode to describeand present the opportunities and drawbacksof each format option. These criteria are:

• data requirements —including complete-ness, size, and use of data, timeliness, etc.;

10 At this time, GPO does not intend to master and replicateCD-ROM products. GPO believes that it would not be cost-effective for the agency to invest in such equipment or neces-sary manpower at this time. If the need for and use of CD-ROMproducts by the Federal Government increased radically andrequires substantial production capabilities, then GPO wouldreconsider its position.

• delivery mode—including format, equip-ment needs, training needs, etc.; and

• costs—including startup, equipment,staff, operational needs, etc.ll

Data requirements. Under the current guide-lines, GPO only offers to depositories the mi-crofiche format with a paper index of the boundfinal Congressional Record. If the CD-ROMbound Record were available, libraries couldchoose among the two formats (microfiche orCD-ROM) for a limited amount of transitiontime. This transition time would provide datato determine user preferences regarding theformat of the bound or final Record. (A limitednumber of printed copies would be availablefor purchase through the Superintendent ofDocuments.) The bound Congressional Recordserves as an important historical, archival, andlegal tool. Member institutions would need todetermine their institutions’ needs regardingaccess (printed or electronic) and transitiontime between different formats if switchingfrom paper and microfiche to CD-ROM or mi-crofiche to CD-ROM. Many libraries may bein the position of housing paper, microfiche,and electronic versions of the Record for ar-chival purposes.12 Many of the same transi-tion issues addressed in the late 1970s and1980s, as libraries incorporated microfiche intotheir collections, would apply here.

There is no agreement on the longevity ofoptical disks, with estimates ranging from aslittle as 10 years to as long as 100 years. Also,although CD-ROMs may endure for up to sev-eral decades or longer, the equipment used to“read” these products may quickly becomeoutdated. Format longevity is important forarchival purposes because one goal of some de-positories is to provide a continuous and com-plete record of government information. Theimportance of maintaining a usable and com-plete Record file reflects several needs—

11 These criteria are based in part on questions proposed bythe ARL Task Force on Government Information in ElectronicFormat for use in evaluating pilot projects; Report No. 1, App.1, Oct. 30, 1986, Draft No. 1.

12GP0 could begin production of CD-ROM formats begin-ning with the 1983 bound Record. However, GPO would be un-able at this time to retrospectively convert earlier (pre-1983)Record tapes to CD-ROM products.

163

historical research, research on a political po-sition, and, increasingly, determination oflegislative intent by the courts, agencies, law-yers, and others.

Timeliness is not a critical issue for thebound Record, though use of the CD-ROM for-mat probably would reduce the current back-log. As with the replication of microfiche, GPOwould rely on private sector contractors tomaster and replicate the disks. The schedulesand reliability of the firms chosen as well asGPO contract specifications would, in manyrespects, determine the turnaround time fromGPO to the depositories.

The availability of the bound Record in a CD-ROM format would enhance and improve ac-cess by users to those files. The number ofusers simultaneously using Congressional Rec-ord information would not necessarily increase,but ease of access to the file would increasedramatically. This would be particularly truewhen compared to the microfiche format. Inaddition, by its very nature, indexing wouldbe built into the disk file, whereas with micro-fiche there is a separate index (still maintainedin paper for congressional and depository use),and searching is more cumbersome and time-consuming. The CD-ROM format would in-clude print-on-demand capabilities similar tothose in use today for microfiche reader/printers. It has been noted that:

A major limitation of using the Record inits current form is the limited indexing andthe difficulty of finding materials. Whereas,the ability to create new subsets of data makesan electronic database very powerful and muchmore valuable than a paper catalog. Searchesof the database become easier, faster, cheaper,and more thorough. 13

In general, the bound Record is not one of themost heavily used items in a depository, butit is one that 1,305 of the 1,393 libraries main-tain and one that is used by patrons. It is ex-pected that improved indexing and easier re-

} ‘Frmtzich, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 42 and, Stephen Frantzich,“Public Access to Congressional Information: The Potential andPitfalls of Technology I?nhanced Access” OTA contractor re-port, January 1987, p. 17.

trieval of information would increase the useof the Record.

Delivery and costs. There would be few, ifany, new requirements or equipment needs forLPS to deliver this information in CD-ROMto the depositories. As noted in Table 7-1 theestimated per-library cost for provision of thebound Congressional Record is $632.83 for pa-per format; $33.74 for a hard copy of the in-dex of the Record; $83.62 for a microfiche copy;and $10.05 for a CD-ROM plus floppy disk (oneof two possibilities under investigation). IfGPO used commercial access software with thedisk, there might be an additional softwarelicense fee, although it would likely be mini-mal. According to GPO, the overall cost of pro-ducing the microfiche master of the bound Rec-ord is $5,047.50, and the estimated productioncost of the CD-ROM master for the bound Rec-ord is $1,700. GPO would not require supple-mental funding to produce the CD-ROM forthe bound Record, if this were the only formatproduced.

However, member depository libraries wouldneed to assess their CD-ROM information ac-cess and equipment needs. The GAO Surveyof Federal Information Users found that over40 per cent of those surveyed have a CD-ROMplayer or access to one. Those libraries with-out CD-ROM players would need to investabout $600-$700 per player. The GAO surveyalso found that 283 of 451 depository librarieshave (or have access to) a microcomputer with-out a modem, and 337 of the 451 have a micro-

Table 7-1 .—Estimated Costs Per Library Per Yearfor Distribution of the Bound Congressional/ Record

to Depository Libraries, Various Formats

Paper Paper Microfiche CD-ROMCopies Index Copies Copies

Printing Cost ... . $569,70$30.30 – –

Production Costs — — $28.27 –Duplication Costs

CD-ROM ... ... – – – $3.00Floppy Disk — — — $5.00

Postage . . . . . . . . . . . $55,30 $3.13 $.85 $1.49

Handling . . . . . . . . . $7,83 $.31 $54,50 $.06

Documentation . . . — — — $.50

Total . . , . . . . . . . . $632.83 $33,74 $83.62 $10,05SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office 1987

164

computer with a modem for online access(many libraries have more than one microcom-puter). Those libraries not having a microcom-puter, or not having adequate access if theequipment is located elsewhere, would need toinvest in a microcomputer as well, at a costof about $1,200 to $1,400. If CD-ROM becomesa major format for depository distribution,many libraries may wish to invest in a com-plete CD-ROM system (player, microcomputer,and printer, at a total cost about $2,500-$3,000per system) for dedicated use.

GPO/LPS training needs would be ratherminimal. The LPS training role could bedirected toward assisting member librarieschoose equipment, providing or developing ad-ditional software applications, and arrangingtraining seminars for participating librarystaff.

Depository library training requirementswould be greater. Libraries would need to pro-vide both hands-on training sessions for staffand at least minimal assistance to users. Theamount of training and assistance requiredwould depend, in part, on the software pack-age provided or developed by GPO and its easeof use. Libraries that have provided some userCD-ROM training and instruction note im-provements in user capabilities and search-strategy success.14

An important consideration with the intro-duction of any service is to factor in, as wellas possible, the life cycle costs. The shift toa CD-ROM format for the bound Record couldresult in a three-format collection for manyinstitutions (for archival and preservation pur-poses): 1) maintenance of paper format for cur-rent information, 2) microfiche for the retro-spective collection, and 3) CD-ROM for thebound Record. The combination of formatswould require the use of different equipmentand possible upgrading of equipment (particu-larly for CD-ROM players), all with associatedpurchase, lease, and/or maintenance costs.

14 For more information see K.J. Pearce, ‘‘CD-ROM: caveatEmptor, Library Journal, vol. 113, No. 2, Feb. 1, 1988, pp. 37-38; and Linda Stewart and Jan Olsen, “Compact Disk Data-bases: Are They Good For Users?, Online, vol. 12, No. 3, May1988, pp. 48-52.

However, this equipment would be used fornumerous tasks and many information prod-ucts, not just the Record.

In summary, there appear to be numerousadvantages to using the CD-ROM format forthe

●

●

●

●

●

●

bound Congressional Record:

the large textual database lends itself tothe CD-ROM format;the information is not current data and,therefore, does not require regular up-dating;the efficiency and ease of access to the in-formation would improve with this for-mat, compared to either paper or micro-fiche products;library shelving needs would be reduced;there could be substantial cost savings forthe GPO/Library Programs Service, de-pending on the format options; andfor some libraries, the ability to combinethe historical data on disk- and currentdata online would present exciting new ac-cess possibilities and potential.

The disadvantages of adopting the CD-ROMformat would be:

●

●

●

the need for some libraries to purchase oneor more pieces of equipment;the need to provide physical space for CD-ROM work stations for microcomputers,printers, and CD-ROM players; andfinally, the need for some or many librariesto maintain collections of the Record inpaper, microfiche, and CD-ROM formats.

Federal Register Online

The Federal Register is one of the core orprocess documents included in the collectionsof most depository institutions. The FederalRegister is a dual format item (available in mi-crofiche or paper from the GPO), and is avail-able online (all or parts thereof) through sev-eral commercial services for a fee. The Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR) is also availablein CD-ROM format from VLSOPTEXT. VLSplans to offer a combination CFR and FederalRegister on disk quarterly with “seamless” ac-cess to an online Federal Register file.

The Federal Register is a daily publicationof the government that documents executivebranch regulations (proposed and final),presidential directives, meetings, and policies(proposed and final). The classes of documentsfound in the Register are grouped under fourheadings or categories:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the President’s section consisting of ex-ecutive orders, proclamations, and otherpresidential documents;rules and regulations, which include theadministrative actions pursuant to stat-utory law;proposed rules, that provide an avenuefor notification of new rulemaking and forinterested parties to comment on draftrules; andnotices, which include miscellaneousagency material, advisory activities andopinions, meetings, and the like. 15

Like the Congressional Record, the FederalRegister is produced daily by GPO, and an elec-tronic database is created by GPO for use inthe printing process. Also, like the Record, thehard copy of the Federal Register takes prece-dence over both electronic and microfiche ver-sions. The microfiche version is replicated (bya GPO contractor) and distributed 24 hoursfollowing the printing, and the corrected elec-tronic tapes are available up to 72 hours fol-lowing the hard copy release. Final correctionsare made by GPO in the electronic databaseduring a lull in the printing process. These datatapes, once corrected, can be purchased on ayearly subscription basis for $37,500, or on adaily basis for $175 per tape from the Superin-tendent of Documents. The daily Register con-tains an index, and a cumulated index is pro-duced monthly. Indexing of the Reqister isautomated. The average number of pages peryear in the Federal Register is 52,000, repre-senting 416 million bytes of information, in-cluding the GPO printing codes.

165

Frantzich has noted that:

It is unreasonable to expect individuals andorganizations to comply with the rules and reg-ulations of government without timely accessto the relevant details. A prime purpose of theFederal Register is to solicit comments andinform the interested public about meetingson proposed regulations.16

The Federal Register is regularly cited bydepository librarians as a key document thatis needed on an up-to-date basis; 1,040 librariesreceive paper copies of the Register and 363receive microfiche copies, both via LPS. In theGAO survey, depository librarians identifiedthe Federal Register online as one of the mostuseful electronic services that could be pro-vided. The Federal Register has been describedas one item received by depositories that can“never arrive soon enough. ” If not receivedin paper format, it is clearly less useful in mi-crofiche due to the time lag and the inherentlimitations of the microfiche format.

LPS requests that depository members re-tain at least the current and previous year’seditions of the Federal Register on file. Mem-ber libraries also retain the current year of theCode of Federal Regulations (except for Title3). Much of the pertinent material printed inthe daily Register is eventually included in theCode of Federal Regulations. Some regionaldepository libraries keep retrospective micro-fiche collections of the Federal Register. Useof these back files has been described as mini-mal due, in part, to the difficulty in using themicrofiche format.

Federal Register Online DeliveryIf the Federal Register were to be provided on-line to depository libraries, there are severalpossible delivery options:

Option 1: Centralized delivery. Depositorieswould have direct access to the FederalRegister data file maintained by GPO,with GPO providing minimal value-addedenhancements to the basic data and with

15 Frantzich, “Public Access to Executive Agency Informa-tion in the Technological Age: Case Studies, OTA contractorreport, February 1988, p. 8.

“ < , — ‘- . , -

16 Frantzich, Ibid.

166

libraries using commercial dial-up tele-communication lines;17

Option 2: Decentralized delivery. GPO wouldduplicate and provide Federal Registercomputer tapes to a select number of de-positories; these depositories would, inturn, locally mount the data and make theinformation available online to participat-ing libraries in a designated region; and

Option 3: Subscription basis. Depositorylibraries would access the Federal Regis-ter data file via a commercial or not-for-profit vendor with a subscription subsidy(full or partial) provided by GPO.

Each of these options will be considered interms of the same criteria applied in the previ-ous discussion of the Record on CD-ROM: datarequirements, delivery, and costs. The bulk ofthe information presented in the discussion ofcentralized delivery applies to the discussionsof decentralized and subscription delivery.Choice of these three delivery options for dis-cussion does not preclude other possible op-tions. It is important to note that decisionsconcerning the Federal Register are made bythe Office of the Federal Register (OFR). De-cisions relating to format and disseminationare determined by the Administrative Com-mittee of the Federal Register, whose mem-bers are the Archivist, Public Printer, a repre-sentative of the Department of Justice, andthe Director of the Federal Register.

Centralized Delivery

The daily Federal Register computer tapes,plus minimal search and retrieval software de-veloped by GPO’s Office of Information Re-sources Management, would be the basic serv-ice provided by GPO to the depositories. TheGPO would provide the data via telecommu-nication facilities online to depositories. Theinformation provided to the depositories wouldbe the same as that found in the paper and mi-crofiche formats, except for the electronic for-mat indexing aids, and would likely be avail-

17 Minimal value-added enhancements would mean addingsufficient search and retrieval capabilities to the database topermit access and use. Anything beyond this level could be leftto the private sector to develop and market.

able within hours of the printed Register. 18

GPO would need to determine how much datato maintain online-for example, the past yearor two of the Register. Users would be requiredto use paper or microfiche copies of the Regis-ter for certain dated materials-for example,those more than 6 months or a year old—instead of relying on the online file.

Data requirements. Online access to the Fed-eral Register would greatly improve and en-hance access to and timeliness of the informa-tion for patrons. Receipt of the Register in atimely fashion is one requirement of its use.Unlike direct access with CD-ROM technology,online access could require a trained informa-tion specialist. Although there are user-friendlysoftware packages available, the telecommu-nication costs associated with online access canbe high, and these costs could be reduced ifa trained librarian performed the search.

Although access to the information in theFederal Register file would be improved, un-less the libraries have high speed modems,users’ searches would likely be limited and theinformation would be downloaded and printedoffline. This adds an additional step to access-ing the information.

Libraries choosing to access the Federal Reg-ister online via GPO would still need to retainsome archival copies of the Federal Registerfor retrospective information. For example,these libraries could elect to maintain micro-fiche copies of the Federal Register for archivalpurposes and access the Federal Register on-line from GPO for current information.

It is difficult to estimate the average usageof the Federal Register file per library, or evenby type of library, due to the diversity and mixof the depository members. While lacking con-crete data, several general observations canbe made. First, for many libraries, the Regis-ter is used most heavily when first received,and then usage drops off. Second, for those li-braries choosing to access the GPO database,with microfiche as the format maintained for

18 GPO is striving to improve the turn-around time for cor-

recting the tapes for the Record and Register.

—

167

archival purposes, there would be greater reli-ance on the online system due to ease of ac-cess and improvement in timeliness. Third,without a certain “cap” placed on usage bydepositories, GPO could face ever increasingtelecommunication costs. The recent experi-ence of the PTO with a similar online serviceis illustrative (see Table 7-3 and discussionbelow).

Fourth, if an overall online usage level wereset, guidelines would be necessary for allocat-ing access throughout the month so that theallocation would not be used up in the first fewdays. Law school libraries are heavy users ofthe Register, as are large urban public libraries.Other depository members have stated thatuse of an online Federal Register would be min-imal, perhaps as little as once every othermonth. Usage of the online service would bequite disparate among the depository librarymembers, with some employing the service lessthan once a month and some requiring dailyuse. Fifth, the enhanced access and capabil-ities of such an online file could increase usageby patrons, which would, in turn, increase thevalue of the file to users.

Data Delivery. A microcomputer, modem,and printer would be the necessary compo-nents for a library electing to access the GPOdatabase. This would be no different than cur-rent access to online services such as DIALOG,BRS, and others.

Costs. The Federal Register is fundedthrough the publishing agencies, not the de-pository library program. As seen in Table 7-2, the cost of printing, postage, and handlingper year, per library subscription to the Fed-eral Register, is $339.67. The cost of the mi-crofiche master, again paid by the publishingagencies, is $7,238, and microfiche copies are$103.12. There are no comparable figures foronline costs for a GPO Register file. However,the online commercial service of Federal Reg-ister Abstracts from Capitol Services Inc.,available through DIALOG, ITT, and SDC,costs $75 per hour, plus $.20 per full recordprinted offline.

Table 7-2.— Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year forDistribution of the Federal Register, by Format

PaperCopies with Paper CFRIndex, CFR Index Sections MicroficheSections a Only Only Copies b

Printing Cost . . . . . $209.01 $5.66 $8.45Product ion Costs . — $23.74Postage . . . . . . . . . . $61.16 $3.06 $3 -0 6 $1.21Handling . . . . . . . . . $69.50 $3.00 $3.00 $78.17

Total . . . . . . . . . . . $339.67 $11.72 $14.51 $103.12a Includes relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).blncludes Federal Register, Index, and relevant sections of the CFR.

Source U S Government Printing Office, 1988

The recent experience with the Classificationand Search Support Information System(CASSIS) at PTO is useful in evaluating thedelivery of an online information service tolibraries, although the information is differentand the number of libraries within the PatentDepository System is much smaller. The pro-vision of online patent information to the pat-ent depository libraries direct from PTO re-sulted in spiraling costs of over one-half milliondollars in 1987 at over $120 per hour (see Ta-ble 7-3) and a partial termination of the pro-gram. PTO has, instead, offered a CD-ROMdisk with the same information to participat-ing patent depository libraries. The CASSISsystem does not require constant or timely up-dating; therefore, a CD-ROM is an appropri-ate technology for this information. Overall,the cost to GPO and the government or to thelibraries in delivering an online file could behigh, depending on who pays the computer andtelecommunication charges and how the devel-opment costs are allocated and recovered.

Table 7-3.—Queries and Cost Data for OnlinePatent Information, 1987

Total Queries: . . . . . . . . . . . 151,808Total Connect Time: . . . . . . 4,315.4 hoursTotal Cost: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $552,066Average Cost per Inquiry . . $3.64Average Cost per Connect

Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $128 including telecom-munication costs ofabout $20 per hour

SOURCE: Patent and Trademark Office, 1987

168

If GPO were to provide online access to aFederal Register database, it would be impor-tant to evaluate necessary capacity to servea broader constituency. GPO is planning anupgrade of their computer facilities. This up-grade is designed for several reasons, one ofwhich is to add capacity to accommodate ac-cess by congressional users to an online Con-gressional Record database. (See ch. 8 for moreinformation.) If the Federal Register wereavailable to depositories online, GPO wouldneed to examine whether this system could ac-commodate both congressional and depositoryaccess and for more than one data file. The in-troduction of such a service would place GPOin the position of an information provider foranother agency’s data file. Presumably, eitherGPO would be providing this online service forthe OFR on a reimbursable basis or GPO wouldreceive appropriations to provide such aservice.

There would be additional costs to some de-positories if this service and format were ad-ded. These costs might include training costsassociated with learning to use the data file,and equipment costs for those libraries with-out an available microcomputer and modem.The GAO user survey found that 283 of 451depositories surveyed have access to a micro-computer without a modem and 337 have ac-cess to a microcomputer with a modem for on-line access. Thus, for some libraries, onlineaccess to the Federal Register would requirethe purchase of a modem ($200-$300) and, forsome, a microcomputer.

Another variation on this option would beto provide online access to a Federal Registerdatabase modeled after the National Libraryof Medicine (NLM) system. The NLM accesspolicy provides that “users share in the costsof access to online services and tapes, ” and that“appropriations . . . bear the cost of buildingthe database, the creation cost.”19 Paper ormicrofiche products would be required in con-cert with this electronic option to guarantee“free” access by those who choose to use thetraditional formats. Users would be expected

19 NLM, Pricing Policy and Medlars Fees, May 1985.

to pay a minimal fee for access to governmentinformation in an additional, but optional, for-mat, and users would be given a choice. Theaverage hourly search cost for the NLM data-bases is between $17 and $22. This is signifi-cantly less than the commercial or PTO costsand merits further consideration, especiallygiven the responses to the GAO Federal In-formation User Survey. Most depository li-brary respondents expressed willingness topay at least a minimal fee ($1-$24 per hour)for online access to the Register data.

Decentralized Delivery

Here, GPO would duplicate magnetic com-puter tapes of the Register for those institu-tions participating in a distributed regional ac-cess program. Daily tapes would be duplicated(in-house or via duplication services) andshipped by overnight mail to depositories formounting on local computer facilities (or couldbe downloaded directly by electronic datatransfer). These libraries would be responsiblefor providing at least a minimal, agreed-uponlevel of service/access to depositories withintheir region. Libraries, not GPO, would be re-sponsible for developing usage policies andresource-sharing principles. In consultationwith depository libraries, GPO would deter-mine the needed regional distribution and num-ber of libraries required for such a plan. Deliv-ery of information between participatinginstitutions would require interconnectionswith local, State, and regional networks.

Data requirements. The computer tapes pro-vided to the depositories would consist of dailyFederal Register data. Minimal retrieval ca-pabilities would be provided by GPO withlicensed software, or the participating insti-tutions could choose to license another soft-ware product with comparable or enhanced ca-pabilities to meet local requirements. Storagerequirements for the local institutions wouldlikely require that one year’s data be kept on-line. The libraries could choose to mount thedata in one of two ways: one file with full textdata online; or two files with the indexing aidson one for the initial search, and the full textfile on the second for follow-on search, if nec-

169

essary. Inquiries for information more than 6months to 1 year old (or whatever period cho-sen) could be referred to paper, microfiche, orCD-ROM collections of archival data. Most ofthe discussion found in option 1 (centralizeddelivery) pertains to this option as well.

As with option 1, usage of this data file wouldlikely increase at certain institutions, with lit-tle change at others. There would be enhancedaccess to information in the daily Register, andthe value of the information to the user wouldincrease due to improved timeliness and ac-cessibility. The number of patrons using theonline system might increase because the lo-cal costs per inquiry would be reduced com-pared to option 1, and user-friendly softwarecould assist local users. The number of usersof an online system would likely increase, ifmicrofiche were the only other format avail-able. Use of the library’s “full” collection ofgovernment documents would likely increaseas a result of the Register being online and theintegration of government information withthe rest of the library’s collection.

Access to information found in the onlineFederal Register would be improved due to theelectronic format. However, as in option 1, un-less the library has a high speed modem andcan download quickly, the library would likelylimit long searches and request that printingof the file be done offline. In this case, withthe file as a local resource, many of the sametime constraints would apply.

Archival copies of the Register would likelynot be in tape format due to the size of the data-base and ensuing storage requirements. In con-cert with other local institutions, archival planscould be formulated, possibly permitting asharing of archiving resources, including con-sideration of CD-ROM products.

Data delivery. For libraries participating as“hosts” in the regional access program, affili-ation with a computer center, either residentwithin the library or within a university or lo-cal government community, would be required.It is likely that the needed computer facilities,for example, mainframe computers, would al-ready be in place in the host institution, so that

the addition of one more database would beminimal. Of the 451 depository institutionsresponding to the GAO Survey of Federal In-formation Users, 149 have access to a main-frame computer. To appreciate the cost under-taken by a library to support such an effort,the up-front cost of a database managementsystem could be as much as $300,000, plus ap-proximately $300,000 per year to maintain andrun the software package. This level of a data-base management system could accommodatemany online services and up to 50 concurrentindividual searches employing complex search-ing (boolean) techniques. The cost of addingadditional files to such a system could rangefrom several to tens of thousands of dollars.

Equipment needs within a region would beas they are now—varied and uneven. Decisionsconcerning access within a region would be re-quired to determine hardware and softwarenecessary for connectivity, for example, dedi-cated phone lines from depositories to the“host” library. A minimum level of service, asset forth by the GPO, would be required of allparticipants so that the “host” institution, inconcert with other local, regional, State, andnational networks, could accommodate depos-itories. Additional services and responsibili-ties would be determined by the host insti-tution.

There would be training needs at the hostinstitution as well as those institutions elect-ing to access the online file. This would entailtraining on use of the file and, in some cases,training on use of equipment for access to files.Database management packages available are“user friendly, ” and these packages permitusers to perform searches without assistance.Additional staff would be required for main-tenance of the file and for training programs.

Costs. There would be minimal additionalcosts to GPO under this option and increasedcosts for the host depository institutions. Asshown in Table 7-4, it would cost GPO a maxi-mum of $62.70 to prepare and ship a tape toa depository, and this estimate may be quitehigh. A more realistic cost is about $30 per tapeif tapes are recycled and some of the loading

170

Table 7-4.—Estimated Reproduction and DistributionCosts, Per Magnetic Tape

Initial loading of the tape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.00’Computer duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.25a

Packaging and Iabelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00’Cost of tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.75b

Postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.70

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $62.70a Does not create new expenses for GPOlf the tasks can be performed with ex-

isting personnel and no overtime IS requiredbThis is expense can be avoided if the vendor/user is required to return the tapeto GPO for reuse,

SOURCE. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987.

and duplication costs are provided in the courseof normal GPO operations.

The host depository costs would likely en-tail initial expenses for mounting and yearlymaintenance and access costs. With computerfacilities and storage capacity already in place,the other new costs would be for additional tele-communication and administrative support.The costs noted previously for a database man-agement package and yearly maintenancewould be the approximate investment neces-sary per institution if the facilities were notalready in place. Once in place, the costs ofincluding another database would be incre-mental. Local usage costs would be less, giventhe reduced telecommunication costs. The un-certainty involves comparing host institutioncosts for access charges to information resi-dent elsewhere, and the costs of mounting lo-cally and permitting access by other deposi-tory institutions. Other local costs would likelyreflect increased use of the library collectionand resources, including costs associated withexpanded interlibrary loan and additionalequipment, and space requirements for workstations.

The costs to the host library in providingthis service to other “local” institutions wouldrequire careful evaluation by GPO and by thehost library to ensure that the benefits ofmounting the file are not outweighed bygreater than anticipated usage, additional staffand training costs, and equipment needs. Par-ticipation would likely require careful coordi-nation with and support from local, State, re-gional, and national networks.

Subscription Basis

Here, GPO would, on a subscription basis,provide online Federal Register informationto depositories. GPO would contract with avendor or not-for-profit institution for a mini-mum period of time (e.g., 3 years) to provideonline Federal Register data to all depositories.GPO would provide a full or partial subsidyto the depositories for use of this system.

GPO would, through a solicitation process,select a vendor to provide depository memberswith access to an online data file of the Fed-eral Register for a minimum of 3 years to pro-vide some continuity. The vendor or not-for-profit service would provide search and re-trieval capabilities within the file comparableto that described in options 1 and 2 (central-ized and decentralized GPO delivery). The in-formation provided to the depositories wouldbe the same as that found in the paper and mi-crofiche format, except for electronic formatindexing aids, and would likely be availablewithin hours of the printed Federal Register.One year of Federal Register data could be in-cluded within the data file. Much of the dis-cussion found in option 1 applies to option 3.And as with option 2, reliance on local, Stateand regional networks would be important tothe success of this option.

Data requirements. As with options 1 and 2,users would have enhanced access to Registerdata in electronic format. The timeliness of thedata would also increase the benefit to users.Under this option, there could be some differ-ence between the types of use possible. Oncethe data file was mounted at an institution (asin option 2), there could be unlimited down-loading or manipulation of that file by users.This may not be the case with option 3 dueto telecommunication costs, possible restric-tions placed on this file by the vendor, and thetype of search and retrieval software employed.

Concerns for archiving the data would be thesame as with options 1 and 2. Archival copieswould need to be retained in some format. Acombination of online and CD-ROM might pro-vide the optimal mix of access and archival re-quirements. The preservation needs of the li-

171

brary would not be the same as those of thevendor. Consequently, maintenance by librar-ies of an alternative format would be required.As with options 1 and 2, local resource-sharingpolicies could be considered.

The extent of usage of this file would be sim-ilar to one provided by GPO, with the improvedtimeliness and ease of access increasing thenumber of users. Also, these improvementswould increase the value of the file to users.

Data delivery. As with option 1, there wouldbe few new requirements beyond a microcom-puter and modem for those libraries electingthis format. Accessing this data file would belike accessing any other online informationservice. Depending on the vendor selected,there could be a need for depository librarystaff training. The telecommunication costswould likely drive the need for a trained infor-mation specialist to perform searches for pa-trons in order to contain search costs, even ifuser-friendly software were used.

Unlike option 1 where GPO would add valueto the existing tapes, a vendor would performthis service in option 3. This could decreasethe amount of control that could be exercisedover the data file and its use—depending uponthe contract. Although government informa-tion is not copyrightable, format is. The valueadded to government information by the ven-dor would be format-related and this could–but, depending on the contract, need not

necessarily-restrict the type of use by depos-itories.

Costs. There are additional costs associatedwith this option for GPO and member libraries.GPO would subsidize either full, or a specifiedlevel of, access to an online data file. In con-sultation with the libraries, GPO would needto determine an equitable level of access permonth to this data. Again, some librarieswould actively and regularly use this Regis-ter file; others would perform just a fewsearches.

Vendors providing online congressional in-formation and other governmental data havesuggested that given the size of the program,a special rate for depository access could beprovided, and that these same vendors alreadyprovide service to many of the libraries. In asomewhat similar arrangement, special ratesonline could be negotiated through FEDLINK(under the auspices of the Federal Library andInformation Center Committee). This accesscould also include files other than the Register.

Libraries participating in this service wouldneed a microcomputer modem and printer; and,to be successful, this equipment should bewithin the depository collection. Training costswould be minimal. Finally, there would stillbe the costs of retaining archival copies of theRegister for 2 years, unless GPO reconsideredits current requirements.

ISSUES DISCUSSION

In this final section, four issues are dis- There are already many government infor-cussed. These issues concern the need for de- mation products in electronic formats that areveloping a clear information policy on access unavailable to the public through the deposi-to government information in electronic for- tory program. Congress needs to determinemat through depository libraries. whether extensive electronic access to govern-

ment information should be available throughthe depository library system, or if the current

Dissemination Formats in the depository access to paper and microfiche

Depository Program printed products, and perhaps a few CD-ROMSand online datafile demonstrations, is an

Should government information in electronic acceptable level of access, recognizing that in-format be disseminated to the public through creasing amounts of government informationthe depository library program? are available only in electronic formats.

172

Congress has repeatedly endorsed and sup-ported the concept and the continuation of thedepository program. As noted earlier, congres-sional support is evident for a number of rea-sons, but particularly because of:

the recognition of the relationship betweenaccess to government information and theprinciples of a democratic form of gov-ernment;the need for a guaranteed channel of ac-cess by the public to government infor-mation;a recognition, in part, that Congressshould not rely solely on the agencies andthe marketplace to provide channels of ac-cess to Federal information; andthe acknowledged modest investment ofapproximately -$20 million in disseminat-ing this information through the GPO de-pository program, compared to the esti-mated several billion dollar cost ofcreating the information.20

As noted by members of the Subcommittee onthe Library during the 1962 hearing on revis-ing the laws relating to the depository libraries:

After a publication serves its primary pur-pose in the functioning of the Government,what more useful additional purpose can itserve than to keep the American public in-formed on the workings of its Government andextending to private endeavors the benefitsand advantages of the information compiled?The depository library system was specificallyestablished to perform that vital function.21

Congress has also endorsed and supported,through the appropriations process and con-gressional oversight, agency disseminationprograms employing information technologies.Implicit in this approval process is the ac-

30 For discussion, see Peter Hernon and Charles McClure,Federal Information Policies in the 1980 ‘s: Conflicts and Issues(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1987); U.S. Con-gress, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Rept.No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d. sess. (1962); and U.S. Congress, Com-mittee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on the Li-brary, Hearings on S. 2029 and H.R. 8141 to Revise the LawsRelating to Depository Libraries, Mar. 15-16, 1962, 87th Cong.,2d sess.

21 U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,Senate Rept. No, 1587, 87th Cong., 2d. sess. (1962) p. 18.

knowledgment by Congress that use of thetechnologies is necessary to accomplish agencymissions or perform agency functions and rep-resents a change in how agency business is andwill be conducted.22 This is also true for con-gressional operations as described in chapter8. An April 8, 1987, resolution by the JCP ac-cepted the recommendations of the Ad HocCommittee on Depository Library Access toFederal Automated Databases and urged GPOto initiate pilot projects. By following thiscourse, the JCP hoped to ensure that the de-pository program would keep pace with elec-tronic information applications within the restof the Federal Government and in the privatesector. The June 17, 1987 JCP resolution au-thorizing GPO to treat publications in elec-tronic format the same as paper and microfichefor the purposes of sale to the public is perti-nent. The recent June 29, 1988 JCP approvalof a series of demonstration projects is alsoimportant.

GPO policy on electronic dissemination todepository institutions is under revision dueto a recent letter from the Chairman of the JCPsupporting the position that:

GPO’s responsibility to print and dissemi-nate Government information, as required byTitle 44, clearly extends to the production anddistribution of Government publications inthese new formats.23

And the House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Legislative, recently ap-proved distribution of CD-ROMs to depositorylibraries.

Congress has also recognized the overall im-portance of ensuring that government infor-

22OMB also recognizes the benefits of electronic informationtechnologies: “We believe that there are substantial savingsto the public and to the government; that the government canoperate more efficiently and more effectively by moving to elec-tronic media; and that there will ultimately be less burden onthe public, ultimately less cost to the public, by moving towardelectronic media. ” From Timothy Sprehe, “Developing a Fed-eral Policy on Electronic Collection and Dissemination of In-formation, Government Publications Review, No. 11, 1984, pp.353-362.23 Letter from the Honorable Frank Amunzio, Chairman,Joint Committee on Printing, to the Honorable Ralph Kennick-ell, Jr., Public Printer, Mar. 25, 1988.

173

mation is publicly available. The 1986 HouseCommittee on Government Operations Report,Electronic Collection and Dissemination of In-formation by Federal Agencies: A Policy Over-view, noted the need:

. . . to make certain that government data inthe public domain-information that has beencompiled using taxpayer funds and that is notclassified or sensitive or exempt from publicdisclosure–will remain freely accessible andeasily reproducible, whether the data ismaintained in paper form or in electronicform.24

The legislative history and recent interpre-tations of the 1962 Depository Library Act andrelated provisions of Title 44 appear to sup-port the inclusion of electronic products in thedepository program. Clarification of congres-sional policy to this end would help to elimi-nate confusion on the part of users, depositorylibraries, private sector and not-for-profit in-formation services, the agencies, and GPO.

In summary, the increasing use of electronicinformation services by all sectors of govern-ment, as is evident from the results of the GAOsurveys of Federal agencies and Federal infor-mation users (see chs. 2, 4, and 5), requires newdissemination decisions by Congress and GPOconcerning depository library distribution for-mat options. Many information products willno longer be available solely in paper or mi-crofiche format, may only be available in elec-tronic format, and may incur additional costsassociated with creating multiple formats.

Changing Costs of theDepository Program

Are the principles of free access still applica-ble, or are there new costs associated with theintroduction of electronic access such that userfees or new funding mechanisms need to be con-sidered?

24 U.S. Congress, Committee on Government Operations,Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by Fed-eral Agencies: A Policy Overview. House Report 99-560, 99thCong., 2d sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1986) p. 9.

Free access by the public to government in-formation is an essential component to the cur-rent depository program. Depository membershave always assumed financial responsibilitiesto provide users with free access to govern-ment information. Current estimates projectthat, on average, for every dollar spent by theFederal Government in depository appropria-tions, 10 dollars are invested in public accessby each participating library.25 Some of theresponsibilities of the libraries include provi-sion of space, materials processing, storage andretention of materials, reference service, inter-library loan, and necessary equipment such asmicrofiche reader/printers.26 A recent surveyby the American Library Association of 16 de-positories estimated that these institutionsspend over $1 million on staff salaries per yearto provide public access to their collections.This same survey noted that 8 libraries in-vested almost $750,000 per year in space andutilities, 15 libraries spent an additional$268,000 in acquisition costs beyond govern-ment-provided materials (e.g., additional co-pies of documents, indexes and reference tools,and the like), 11 libraries spent over $17,000in telecommunication costs, and 14 librariesinvested over $45,000 in supplies, copying, andthe like. Users typically pay only copying feesfor paper and microfiche materials, and, insome institutions, copying of diskettes. Thefinancial contribution of GPO and the sourceagencies to the program is the cost of print-ing, publishing, and dissemination of govern-ment materials to the depository libraries.

The introduction of electronic informationto the program may result in the need for areexamination of the current relationship be-tween libraries and the government. Becausethere are new costs associated with provisionof electronic information, depository members

X American Library Association, Survey data from Question-naire to Federal Depository Libraries, February 1988.

26 For information on costs assumed by depositories see:Francis Buckley, “Cost Elements of a Federal Depository, ”Detroit Public Library, July 1976; Sandra Faull, “Cost and Ben-efits of Federal Depository Status For Academic ResearchLibraries, ” New Mexico State Library, May 1979; and Ann Bre-gent, “Cost of Regional Depository Library Service in the Stateof Washington, ” Washington State Library, July 1979.

174

and GPO will need to determine if the level ofsupport currently provided by libraries andGPO will be sufficient for and applicable to pro-viding electronic information. It has beenstated that:”. . . it has become quite clear thatto take full advantage of computer and tel-ecommunications technologies will require ad-ded funds on the part of the library.”27 Thenature of the relationship between the librariesand the government is one of cooperation. Ifthe introduction of a new service or technol-ogy shifts the balance of the program andplaces even greater financial and/or adminis-trative burdens on libraries, the cooperativeinfrastructure of the program could be changedor diminished. This shift in costs is alreadyoccurring as institutions increasingly move tousing information technologies.

Libraries, like the Federal agencies, are em-ploying information technologies in supportof their programs and in support of their users’information needs. The amount and types ofinformation technologies used by libraries willcontinue to expand and change. As the newertechnologies are introduced, the role of the li-brary will become more of a gateway to infor-mation versus a repository for information, andmore and more librarians will be asked to actas intermediaries for accessing information. Al-though there will continue to be a growingamount of “user-friendly” software to assistthe user in employing information technol-ogies, there will be an even greater need forinformation specialists to perform searches onsophisticated search services and technol-ogies.28 This evolving role of libraries also af-fects current resource-sharing practices byshifting access from a print-based to a "bimo-dal environment of a library providing accessto document-based and electronic information-

based resources.”29 With this shift comesnew costs or reallocation of old costs to accom-modate the expenses of electronic information.These trends are forcing librarians to recog-nize that there are additional costs associatedwith electronically formatted information andthat these costs must be reconciled with cur-rent library practices and budgets.

There would be some reallocation of costswithin libraries as more information and serv-ices become available electronically. For exam-ple, staff costs for the processing of incomingmicrofiche and paper would be reduced, aswould storage needs. However, the costs oftraining, increased staff intervention, andequipment for electronic-based services wouldincrease. Agencies will experience similar shiftsin services and financial obligations.

Depository institutions now provide accessto government information “free” of chargeto users. Policies concerning government in-formation available through online services towhich value has been added vary from libraryto library. Some provide a minimum level offree access by number of citations or searchtime, whereas others charge the user for thefull cost of the search. Depository librariansnote the different kinds of access afforded bythe different media, and these differences (inaddition to cost) are taken into considerationduring the mediation/reference process.

When considering the introduction of elec-tronic products, it is also important to reexam-ine all formats and the criteria or guidelinesemployed in determining which format(s) areused for each government information prod-uct. Many government information productsmay not be available in more than one formatdue to budgetary and fiscal restraints. Theserestraints affect the depository program as

27 Susan K. Martin,“Technology and Cooperation: The Be-haviors of Networking. ” Library Journal, vol. 112, No. 16, Oc-tober 1987, p. 44.

z~Ass~iation of Research Libraries, Task Force on Govern-ment Information in Electronic Format, Report No. 2, Apr. 21,1987, p. 19.

291 bid., p. 20, and Barbara Moran, Academ”c Libraries: TheChanging Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities(Washington, D. C., Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1984),p. 24; and Cline and Sinnott, The Electronic Library (Lexing-ton, MA: Lexington Books, 1983).

175

well as other governmental programs. The de-pository community and LPS need to collec-tively determine which products can be pro-vided in one format to effect savings for theprogram and, thereby, permit the inclusion ofother information products in the program.The appropriate format for one library may notbe the best format choice for another institu-tion but, given the number of products enter-ing the program and the cost of many of thenew electronic products, budgetary constraintsrequire further format decisions.

If the basic underlying principle of the pro-gram is to retain free access by the public togovernment information, then Congress needsto recognize that there maybe additional costsassociated with the introduction of electronicinformation, and assist depository libraries andGPO in designing and financing new ways tomake this information available to the public.

Reorganized Depository Program

Can the current depository system accommo-date new responsibilities for electronic formatsor should a new institutional structure be con-sidered?

The current depository system is composedof a mix of organizations with diverse needsand clienteles. Members are at different stagesof introducing information technologies, rang-ing from the highly sophisticated institutionswith a broad array of electronic services tolibraries just introducing OCLC services. Anydiscussion of either a reorganized depositoryprogram, or a system that would include newformats, must consider this diversity.

The current system can accommodate new re-sponsibilities for the dissemination of elec-tronic products, regardless of format, throughthe depository program. The current structuremay not necessarily be the most efficient oreffective, but many member institutions havesome experience with electronic formats fromproviding other electronic services to patrons

and/or incorporating electronic technologiesinto their operations.30 More information con-cerning the effectiveness and user needs of thedepository program will be available follow-ing the completion of a GPO study of the de-pository program. Fry noted in 1978 that theeffectiveness of the depository program couldonly be: “. . . a matter of conjecture, becausethere is a lack of reliable descriptive and sta-tistically significant data upon which to basepolicy decisions.”31 This remains true today.An evaluation of the effectiveness of the GPOdepository library program may be merited.This evaluation could take place at the sametime as the pilot and demonstration projectsthat will introduce and evaluate the deliveryof electronic products. This is an opportunityto examine the future directions and organiza-tion of the depository program.

If electronic files are included, it is likely thatmany depository libraries will continue to se-lect only those products and files most ger-mane to their patrons. For some, this may notinclude electronic files for the foreseeable fu-ture. Individual libraries will decide whetheror not electronic access to certain governmentfiles is a necessary addition to the collection.More and more government information willbe produced in electronic formats. Some librar-ies may not accept these formats immediately,but will require electronic data in the near fu-ture to supplement paper and microfiche col-lections.

The level of resource-sharing and coopera-tion among depository libraries varies through-out the country. Generally, it has been notedthat: “using technologies and databases al-ready in place, librarians are beginning to iden-

a~Fo~ more information, see: Peter Hereon, Charles McClure,and Gary Purcell, GPO Depository Libraq’ Program: ADescriptive Amdysis (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.,1985); and Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, Public Accessto Government Information: Issues, Trends, and Strategies.(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1984.)al BernWd Fry, Government Publications: Their Role in theNational Program for Library and Information Services (Wash-ington, DC: NCLIS, December 1978. )

176

tify the benefits and procedures of cooperativecollection development and cooperative pres-ervation of library materials."32 In someStates, such as New York, there is a very uni-fied system, with the State library (a regionaldepository) taking a lead role in the operationof the program. In this case, the State libraryassists new libraries wishing to gain deposi-tory status, implements resource-sharing pol-icies throughout the State, and seeks to achievea consistent level of service throughout theState for access to government documents.Some regionals share resources, whereby a re-gional will accept responsibility for govern-ment documents, but the documents them-selves are processed and housed elsewhere.This practice enhances collection developmentand resource-sharing within a State or region.Within this “system,” it is also recognized thatthe degree of technological sophistication isvaried (as are user needs); not all libraries needon-site access to all electronic files, nor do theyhave the capabilities to access these files. How-ever, there is an infrastructure in place thatcan accommodate these institutions if accessto electronic files or other data is needed. Otherareas and States do not have a “collective” sys-tem and operate on a more independent basis.

Some of those States and regions already em-ploying cooperative arrangements have devel-oped or are planning systems similar to theAssociation of Research Libraries’ proposal forrestructuring the depository library system.The ascending levels of responsibilities ofbasic, intermediate, and full service describean informal network already in place in manyparts of the depository system. This is just oneof many possible directions that the deposi-tory library program could take as new tech-nologies and electronic information applica-tions are introduced.

Careful evaluation of the effects of these newinformation services on users, libraries, agen-cies, and GPO will be needed. When these ef-fects are better understood, discussion could

32 Op. cit., P. Martin, footnote 27, p. 43.

begin on possible reorganization alternatives.A mechanism for evaluating these effectsmight be helpful, such as a committee with rep-resentatives from LPS, the JCP and other rele-vant congressional committees, agencies withelectronic products in the program, depositorylibrarians, and members of the Depository Li-brary Council.

Transition to a reorganized depository sys-tem would take time and effort. Current de-pository members would need to consider care-fully a new system that would best serve theneeds of libraries and users, and ensure thatthe resources within the region would be suffi-cient to satisfy resource-sharing requirements.

Changing Roles of Stakeholders

Does the increasing shift to electronically for-matted information require a reexamination ofthe composition and relationships of the stake-holders in the depository program?

As noted in chapter 6, the depository pro-gram is a: “. . . cooperative program betweenthe Federal Government and designated ma-jor libraries throughout the United States . . ."33 Three participants are identified by Con-gress in this depository program relationship:the government, selected libraries throughoutthe United States, and the public. Through-out the history of the program, Congress andGPO have maintained this partnership andhave relied on other services-both private sec-tor services, such as Congressional Informa-tion Service, Inc. (CIS), and not-for-profit serv-ices, such as OCLC—to improve governmentinformation resources and to serve as othersources of access to government information.The different avenues of access–directly froman agency, through a depository library, orthrough a private sector information source—ensure access for a variety of constituencies,each with differing needs.

33 Senate U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Adminis-tration, Subcommittee on the Library. Depository Libraries,Hearings on S. 2029 and H.R. 8141 to Revise the Laws Relat-ing to Depository Libraries, 87th Cong., 2d. sess., Mar. 15-16,1962, p. 25.

177

The depository library program representsone of several marketplace opportunities forprivate sector services, and this marketplaceis expanding. Private information vendors per-form numerous roles in the government infor-mation marketplace. Vendors reprint govern-ment materials (since there is no governmentcopyright). For example, The Effects of Nu-clear War, an OTA publication, was reprintedcommercially under that title and as After Mid-night: The Effects of Nuclear War. Private sec-tor services design and create databases forFederal agencies and may even disseminate thedata files for agencies. Private sector firms alsoadd value to government data in all formats—paper, microfiche, and electronic. For exam-ple, CIS, Inc. develops indexes to congressionalinformation, and the Code of Federal Regula-tions is available through OPTEXT on CD-ROM. Depositories and other institutions pur-chase and/or subscribe to these products forseveral reasons:

• to enhance existing government materi-als, for example, the CIS Congressionalindexes;

● to have access to information in a moretimely fashion; or

• to access value-added information that isnot available through the government de-pository program.

The increasing shift by agencies to electronicinformation products is presenting new oppor-tunities for private sector involvement in theinformation practices of government. Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-76 and A-130 encourage agencies to employprivate sector services when possible to mini-mize competition between government and theprivate sector and for reasons of economy andefficiency .34 Generally, private sector firmssupport OMB policies because they advocatean expanding private sector role in governmentinformation practices. The Commission onFreedom and Equality of Access to Informa-tion noted in 1986 that:

“Hereon and McClure, Federal Information Policies, op. cit.,footnote 20, pp. 244-246.

The Information Industry Association andother organizations representing informationproviders have vigorously opposed expansionof government publishing programs, advocat-ing a policy that would forbid government en-try into competition with existing private sec-tor services and discourage the Governmentundertaking new information disseminationprograms using the new media unless therewas an overriding national need and a demon-strated unwillingness or inability of the pri-vate sector to offer a service meeting thatneed.35

In the past, the Information Industry Asso-ciation has opposed “direct distribution’ ofgovernment information in electronic formatto depository libraries by GPO, taking the po-sition that information in electronic formatdoes not fall within the statutory authority ofthe depository library program, and if distri-bution were to occur, “. . . the Governmentshould rely upon the private sector."36 Mem-bers of the Information Industry Associationhave voiced concern that, if GPO were to dis-seminate government information in electronicformat, there would be direct competition withexisting or prospective private sector services,and that some of these services would be forcedout of business or otherwise suffer adverse eco-nomic consequences.

On the other hand, the Commission on Free-dom and Equality of Access noted that:

. . . libraries and university interests havewished to see the Government expand its pub-lishing programs using the new media in or-der to offer broad and inexpensive access.They have felt that the principle of the depos-itory library system developed for printed ma-terials should be applicable to information inother forms as well.37

35 Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Infor-mation, Freedom and Equality of Access to Information (Chi-cago, ALA, 1986), p. 75.

36 Information Industry Association, Public Policy Activitiesof the Information Industry Association, (Washington, DC: 11A,June 1987), p. 49, and (January 1988), pp. 43-44.

37 Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Infor-mation, Freedom and Equality of Access to Information (Chi-cago, IL: ALA, 1986), p. 75.

178

An expanded role for the information indus-try in the dissemination of electronic informa-tion in the depository library program is causefor further concern within the library commu-nity, due to the lack of explicit information pol-icies.38 As the information industry looks toOMB for leadership on electronic dissemina-tion, the library community looks to the JCP.The separation of power issue causes additionaltension because the agencies are caught betweenOMB’s policies that emphasize the private sec-tor role and JCP policies that emphasize a gov-ernmental and GPO role. The information in-dustry tends to view government informationas an economic commodity that should, to theextent possible, be sold for profit in an unregu-lated free market. In contrast, the library com-munity (as represented by the American LibraryAssociation [ALA]) views government informa-tion as a public good and believes that relianceon market forces will not adequately ensure ac-cess to government information.

Several groups, including the National Com-mission on Libraries and Information SciencePublic Sector/Private Sector Task Force, theCommission on Freedom and Equality of Ac-cess to Information, and the ARL Task Forceon Government Information in Electronic For-mat, have developed broad-based principlesand/or key considerations that describe, clar-ify, and/or determine the roles of stakeholdersin the government information creation, proc-essing, and dissemination cycle. Some havesuggested that it maybe impossible to developoverall guidelines for electronic products, andthat a case-by-case review may be needed foreach data file.

There are several underlying principles ofthis overall debate on which most major stake-holders appear to agree and from which fur-ther congressional policy can be developed.First, public access to government information(regardless of format) is a basic right of U.S.

society and is vital to the functioning of ourdemocratic form of government. Second, thereare different stakeholders in this public accessprocess, all of whom contribute to its success.Third, the roles of the stakeholders are bothcomplementary and competitive, and none canbe completely excluded from the process.Fourth, the depository program, a key avenueof public access, is a unique dissemination pro-gram of the Federal Government, and is nec-essary to the continuation of the principles ofpublic access.

An examination of the changing roles of thestakeholders in the depository program is im-portant as new formats are introduced anddemonstration projects commence. The recentcontroversy over an initiative by the PublicPrinter to “enlist the cooperation of non-government information service providers forthe delivery of online information services toselected depository libraries” is one exampleof the need for a clearly stated congressionalpolicy .39 Reliance on a non-governmentalservice or government-contracted service toprovide depository library program access togovernment information would signify achange in the depository program and wouldalter the current relationships.

Moreover, the basic premise of free accessto government information in the depositoryprogram may conflict with a private sectorvalue-added role. For example, once a govern-ment-generated database is purchased by avendor, the vendor “adds value” to this datafile, creating anew enhanced product. The ven-dor now may have proprietary rights associ-ated with this new product or format (althoughnot the information per se). If this product isthe electronic file made available to the depos-itories, conditions may be placed on the useof that file. This would be a departure fromcurrent practice of unrestricted use that is pri-marily due to the nature of the format—paperand microfiche versus electronic. For the value

38 Letter from Duane Webster, Interim Executive Director,Association of Research Libraries, to Ralph Kennickell, Jr., Pub-lic Printer, Dee, 28, 1987; and phone conversations with mem-bers of the depository library community and information in-dustry, December 1987.

39 Letter from Ralph Kennickel], Jr., Public Printer, toHonorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, Joint Committee onPrinting, Dec. 10, 1987.

179

added to the government information, the ven- tent the private sector is directly involved indor deserves compensation. At the same time, electronic dissemination to depository librar-the public’s right to free and unrestricted ac- ies, new kinds of pricing and access arrange-cess to government information is a corner- ments maybe needed to preserve the basic ob-stone of the depository program. To the ex- jectives of the depository program.

Chapter 8

Electronic Dissemination ofCongressional Information

From the top: Congressional Research Service InquiryUnit (photo credit: Library of Congress); and the

Congressional Record coming off the press(photo credit: U.S. Government Printing Office).

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................183Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................184Current Methods of Congressional Information Dissemination . .........185Congressional Information Products Case Studies:

Cogressional Record and Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..187Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 187Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .., .., ..190

Dissemination Practices of Congressional Support Agencies . ...........192Office of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192General Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ...194Congressional Research Service . . . . . . . . . . .........................195

Discussion of Crosscutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....196Benefits of Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...196Congressional Responsibility for Electronic Access . .................199Need for an Index to Congressional Information . ...................201Role of GPO.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ...201Need for Congressional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

TablesTable Page8-1. GPO Distribution of the Congressional Record . ...................1898-2. Volume of Telephone Bill Status Requests Handled by

the House LEGIS Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......1928-3. GAO Information Products Distributed in Fiscal Year 1987. . . .. ....1948-4. Library Use of Congressional Information by Format,

Currently and in Next 3 Years . . . . . . ............................1988-5. Library Assessment of Usefulness of Congressional Information

in Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1988-6. Library Willingness to Pay for Congressional Information in

Electronic Formats, Maximum Acceptable Charge, ,. .... ,. ... ... ..200

Chapter 8

Electronic Dissemination ofCongressional Information

SUMMARY

Congress, like the rest of the Federal Gov-ernment, is presented with new technologicalopportunities and choices for the dissemina-tion of information. Congress has a long andvalued tradition as an open political institu-tion and has, over time, made informationabout congressional processes and actionsmore readily available to the public. The ad-vent of electronic formats for congressionalinformation has created a window of opportu-nity for Congress to set the direction of con-gressional information policy for the years andperhaps decades ahead.

Electronic formats—such as online computersystems or compact disks—offer significantbenefits to knowledgeable users, including,most importantly, improvements in timelinessof information, access to information, and effi-ciency of information search and retrieval.Those who have access to electronic formats,therefore, gain significant information advan-tages over those whose access is limited totraditional paper and microfiche formats.

At present, the members of Congress andcongressional staff have access to electronicformats via internal legislative branch infor-mation systems and/or private sector vendors.Members of the general public have accessthrough commercial information services ifthey can afford the rather substantial user fees.The problem is that many segments of the pub-lic cannot afford commercial rates, and, there-fore, are effectively disadvantaged in terms ofaccess to congressional information. Congres-sional information products such as the Con-gressional Record, bill status, committeereports and hearings, materials from supportoffices, and the like are vital to informed andeffective participation in the legislative proc-ess. Therefore lack of access, or the inability

to afford access, to electronic formats can eas-ily translate into a political handicap.

Congress needs to determine the level ofresponsibility y it wishes to assume for electronicinformation dissemination, and how active itsrole should be. In doing so, Congress may wishto establish an overall congressional informationdissemination policy (which is currently lacking)that would help define the types of congressionalinformation that Congress desires to be readilyand publicly available in electronic formats. Atthe same time, Congress should also considerthe roles of the various congressional officesand agencies (including U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO), House Information Sys-tems [HIS], Senate Computer Center, Officeof Technology Assessment (OTA), Congres-sional Research Service (CRS), GeneralAccounting Office (GAO), Congressional Bud-get Office, and the like), as well as publiclyfunded programs such as the Depository Li-brary Program (DLP), in making such elec-tronic information available. Because of itsgrowing role in providing electronic formatsto Congress as part of the electronic publish-ing process, GPO is positioned to more activelyparticipate in disseminating electronic formatsto the depository libraries and public at large.

Congress may wish to review policies on pub-lic dissemination of support agency materials.For example, congressional policies limit di-rect public distribution of CRS reports to asmall fraction (perhaps 1/10 of the total), al-though copies of many more are obtained bythe public indirectly through individual mem-ber offices. As another example, a limited num-ber of GAO reports and OTA summaries areavailable to the public free while OTA reportsare available for a fee through the GPO salesprogram.

183

184

Congress also may wish to develop, as partof an overall policy, a clear intent as to the roleof private vendors. Presumably, vendors wouldbe able to obtain any publicly available congres-sional information, and repackage and resellthat information, as they already do to someextent now. However, some vendors would liketo contract directly with Congress, perhaps ona bulk rate discount basis, for electronic dis-semination of congressional information to de-pository libraries, the general public, and theCongress itself.

Finally, given the large number of House,Senate, and congressional support offices and

units involved with the creation and dissemi-nation of congressional information, Congressmay wish to establish an index to such infor-mation (through a congressional agency or acontractor), and a formal coordinating mech-anism to maximize the exchange of learningand minimize the potential overlap, and to takeadvantage of the opportunities for technologi-cally enhanced access. In many respects, con-gressional decisions on electronic dissemina-tion of congressional information are just asimportant as prior decisions on radio and tele-vision coverage of congressional hearings andfloor sessions.

INTRODUCTION

Congress has traditionally supported and en-dorsed meaningful citizen participation in itsdeliberations. One key facilitator of participa-tion is the dissemination of congressional in-formation, which has occurred in a variety ofways since the earliest days of the Republicand continues today with a mix of public andprivate information services participating inthe dissemination process.1

Initially, Congress relied upon newspapersto publish information concerning the deliber-ations and acts of Congress. The first appropri-ation for public printing was made in 1794, andpolicies were effected which ensured distribu-tion of Federal statutes to rural areas not wellserved by newspapers. And with the Decem-ber 1813 resolution concerning governmentprinting, “Congress became committed to theformal and regular distribution of its publica-

I The information in this chapter is based in part on contrac-tor reports prepared for OTA by Stephen Frantzich, “PublicAccess to Congressional Information: The Potential and Pit-falls of Technology Enhanced Access, ” January 1987; “PublicAccess to Congressional Support Agency Information in theTechnological Age: Case Studies, ” Nov. 12, 1987; and “PublicAccess to Congressional Information in the Technological Age:Case Studies,” September 1987. For related discussion also see,U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal Gov-ernment Information Technology: Congressional Oversight andCivil Liberties, OTA-CIT-297, (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, February 1986), especially ch. 8.

tions."2 Reliance upon private printers endedwith the establishment of GPO in 1860. GPOwas created due to charges of corrupt print-ing practices and concerns about newspaperpatronage. The establishment of GPO gavegovernment, and particularly Congress, themeans to produce documents for its own andthe public’s use. Congress also established theDLP to make Congressional and other govern-mental information more broadly available tothe general public. The creation of the deposi-tory system was further affirmation by Con-gress of the need for a sound distributionsystem for congressional documents and in-formation about governmental deliberations,to ensure widespread information dissemina-tion in support of the democratic form of gov-ernment.

The Printing Act of 1895 was the next ma-jor legislative action concerned with the print-ing and publishing practices of government.This legislation combined pertinent past leg-islation relating to the printing, binding, anddistribution of government publications. ThisAct centralized the printing functions of gov-ernment at GPO, institutionalized the dis-tribution of the Congressional Record, andstrengthened the depository library provisions

2P. Hernon, C. McClure, and G. Purcell, GPO’s DepositoryLibrary Program (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1985), p. 4.

185

among other things. The Act and subsequentamendments continue to be the basis for ex-isting regulations and policies.

Throughout this time, GPO and congres-sional lawmakers continued to place empha-sis on improving the quality, timeliness, andefficiency of dissemination mechanisms. Thepredominant format available has been andcontinues to be paper or hard copy, with mi-crofiche serving as a secondary format sincethe 1970s. Recent advances in informationtechnologies present Congress with new oppor-tunities for creating, producing, packaging,and disseminating the Congressional Recordand other congressional materials in a moretimely fashion. The issues facing Congress arenot unlike those facing the Federal agenciesas they move to incorporate information tech-nologies into ongoing information activities.

As with debate concerning the future of thedepository program, the central issue in thedebate over congressional information con-cerns the level of public access to congressionalinformation envisioned by Congress, particu-larly as facilitated by the new information tech-nologies. In exploring this issue, there areseveral questions that require examination, in-

cluding: the extent to which electronic formatspermit enhanced access to congressional ma-terials, and, if they do, what types of congres-sional information are especially useful in elec-tronic formats; the degree to which Congresshas a responsibility to ensure equitable accessto congressional information in all formats; theneed for an index to congressional informationin order to improve public access to such in-formation; the extent to which the introduc-tion of new electronic technologies mightchange the GPO and private sector roles in dis-semination of congressional information; and,finally, the extent to which the increasing paceof automation activities within the legislativebranch requires a more coordinated informa-tion dissemination plan to enhance public ac-cess to congressional information.

This chapter will explore these questionsthrough a description of current disseminationpractices, and by case studies of the Congres-sional Record and of bill status information.These are followed by a brief review of othertypes of congressional information availableand current dissemination practices of selectedsupport offices. Finally, the chapter discussesseveral key cross-cutting issues.

CURRENT METHODS OF CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATIONDISSEMINATION

Numerous access channels are available tousers of congressional information, though notall avenues are open to all users nor do manyusers know how to access certain types of con-gressional information. Once a document isidentified, it is possible to receive informationdirectly from a congressional office, from a con-gressional committee, from House or SenateDocument Rooms, and from the GPO Salesprogram. DLP is another avenue available tothose who seek access to congressional infor-mation. This depository library channel,though not part of a‘ ‘congressional’ office oragency, is available throughout the countryin approximately 1,400 libraries. Also, though

not an “information’ product per se in thetraditional sense, C-SPAN (the Cable SatellitePublic Affairs Network) provides direct accessto televised congressional proceedings andstimulates interest in congressional materials.Finally, access to congressional informationis available through the press and via privateinformation services that provide congres-sional information in all formats.

Congressional offices are often the first stopfor many seeking congressional information,Congressional staff will obtain for constituentscongressional documents from other offices,committees, and congressional support offices

186

such as OTA or CRS. An estimated 25 percentor more of incoming congressional mail are in-formation requests from constituents.

Congressional committees distribute theirown hearings, committee prints, and reports.The Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, Public Law 99-177, re-sulted in a tightened limit on the number ofcopies available to committees, thereby reduc-ing availability of congressional informationto the public through this channel. Commit-tees are provided 300 copies of each producttoday, compared with an average of 612 in1985. It has been noted that committees arenow less willing to give away copies of con-gressional materials from their limitedsupply. 3

The House and Senate Documents Rooms wereoriginally intended as the primary access pointfor those seeking free congressional products.Distribution rules for the two Rooms are sim-ilar, though not identical. The stock of theRooms is composed of the following: bills, reso-lutions, committee reports, laws, and congres-sional documents from the current Congress.Committee reports are only in stock on a “asavailable” basis, and other documents are gen-erally reprinted or photocopied as necessary.Committee hearings are not distributed by theDocument Rooms. Calendars of the UnitedStates House of Representatives are availablefrom the House Document Room, and the Sen-ate Calendar of Business is distributed throughthe Senate Post Office with no direct publicdissemination. Finally, both Rooms retainselected materials from previous Congresses,although coverage is very incomplete.

Requests to Document Room staff are eitherin person over the counter, by phone, by mail,or through electronic mail. No formal recordsare maintained, though Document Room staffdo estimate the number of individuals servedand do distinguish between congressional staffrequests and those of the general public. It isimportant to note that many of the congres-

3 Stephen Frantzich, “Public Access to Congressional Infor-mation in the Technological Age: Case Studies, ” op. cit., foot-note 1, p. 16.

sional staff requests are in response to constit-uent inquiries. The House Document Roomserves approximately 300 in-person requestsper day, with over half of these being “direct”requests from the public. The Senate Docu-ment Room serves approximately 400 to 500in-person requests daily with no comparableestimate on the number of ‘direct” public re-quests. The Senate Document Room respondsto phone requests only from congressionalstaff, totaling approximately 300 daily callsthat are usually for multiple documents. TheHouse Document Room responds to approxi-mately 275 congressional staff requests for in-formation each day by phone, and another 45-50 requests are recorded each night on a tele-phone answering machine. The volume of mailrequests varies depending on the day of theweek and the visibility of congressionalproceedings. The House Document Room re-ceives between 125 to 250 mail requests perday, and the Senate Document Room receivesapproximately 200 to 250 mail requests perday. Both Senate and House Document Roomstaff note along term growth in mail requests.Finally, congressional staff can place ordersfor documents from the House DocumentRoom through an electronic mail system.

The Document Room distribution is primar-ily used by more “sophisticated observers ofgovernment. Commercial firms, lobbyists,public interest groups, and law firms systemat-ically use the Document Rooms to access con-gressional information.

Budget reduction measures resulted in theestablishment of the Congressional Sales Of-fice under the Superintendent of Documents(SupDocs) at the GPO. This Office receives 25copies of hearings and prints. Staff do ordermore copies for those materials thought to beof greatest interest and, therefore, likely to bein higher demand. Items are sold on a non-subscription basis over the counter, by mail,and by telephone. GPO also offers permanentsubscriptions to government documents, andthis includes subscription sales of electronictapes of selected congressional documents.

‘Ibid., p. 21.

187

Private information services also provide ac-cess to congressional information. For exam-ple, Congressional Information Service (C IS)serves as a source of congressional material.CIS offers extensive indexing and abstractingof congressional documents, sells hard copyindexes to congressional information, and pro-vides online indexing via DIALOG. The CISindexes have become the standard source and,in fact, are used by GPO as a master list. Inaddition to these other services, CIS sellsyearly microfiche subscriptions and individ-ual microfiche subscriptions of bills, laws, com-mittee prints, committee reports, committeedocuments, and hearings.

Several private information vendors areoffering congressional products in electronicformat. Commercial efforts focus on productssuch as the Congressional Record and bill sta-tus as these are time sensitive and can be muchmore useful in an online format. The vendorspurchase the computer tapes produced by GPOthat are used in support of the printing proc-ess, remove the GPO printing codes, and addsearch and retrieval software. The searchingsoftware employed by the different vendorsvaries considerably.

In addition to the access channels describedabove, there are two other not so direct avenuesfor those interested in obtaining congressional

information. These are telephone hot lines oper-ated within Congress and outside and the DLP.The LEG IS office within the House Informa-tion Systems Office provides bill status infor-mation over the phone or will send a printoutwith information concerning House and Sen-ate actions. Party leadership offices’ also pro-vide scheduling information (recorded mes-sages) that is accessible by the public. Finally,different interest groups, such as the Cham-ber of Commerce, have recorded message serv-ices for members but these services are avail-able to the general public as well. Theseservices usually provide minimal informationconcerning current congressional actions andnews.

The DLP is a cooperative program betweenthe Federal Government and approximately

1,400 libraries. The Government provides co-pies of government-produced materials free ofcharge, and the libraries, in return, providehousing for the documents and access to thisinformation free of charge to their patrons.Congressional documents are some of the mostfrequently used materials in depository collec-tions. Many of the congressional materials aredual format items, available in either paper ormicrofiche. (For more information on deposi-tory libraries, see chs. 6 and 7.)

CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION PRODUCTS CASE STUDIES:CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND BILL STATUS INFORMATION

Case studies of the Congressional Record gins. Information in all formats, typed, handand of bill status information are presented to written, and electronic, is received by GPO forilluminate many of the issues and questions reproduction in the daily printed Record. Ma-facing Congress as electronic information tech- terial from the floor includes typed transcriptsnologies are introduced in support of ongoing from floor reporters (approximately 20 per-programs. cent), typed speech drafts from Members, co-

pies of bills, newspaper articles, and other doc-

Congressional Recorduments Members wish included in the Record.Much of this information to be inserted in-cludes hand written corrections. Members have

Production the right to “revise and extend” their remarksThe Congressional Record is produced as taken down on the floor, or to insert an en-

nightly and delivered to Congress by 8:00 a.m. tirely new speech. It is GPO’s job to “weavethe following morning, before the session be- and blend’ this material into the Record.

188

GPO keystrokes all documents anew, exceptfor the text of some bills and resolutions andrecorded votes in the House. Approximately56 percent of the text of bills are in electronicformat; the remainder require keystroking byGPO. Although much of the material insertedin the Record is created on word processors,it is not received in electronic form by GPO.GPO must transfer this information into elec-tronic format to produce the typeset pages andthe photographic plates from which the hardcopies of the Record are printed. In the proc-ess, magnetic computer tapes of the Recorddatabase are created. From this perspective,the creation of the magnetic tapes is solely tosupport the printing process and, therefore,is a byproduct of the printing process.

As material is received from the floorreporters of the House and the Senate, it ismarked for identification purposes, edited forproper format, and keyed into the database.Those materials, such as bills, that are pre-stored in electronic form are then inserted, andthe data are proofread. Since all sections of theRecord do not arrive at the same time or inthe order they are to be printed, electronic as-sembly of the final product is required priorto the creation of typeset pages, plates, andprinted copies. Proofreading is accomplishedin galley format prior to electronic assembly,and final corrections are made to the photocom-posed page before negatives and printingplates are prepared. The presses then beginrunning the hard copy version of the Record.Final corrections to the electronic version arenot a priority effort at GPO but are completedas soon as possible.

In addition to the paper format, microfichecopies are produced for distribution. A contrac-tor produces both the microfiche master andcopies for the GPO.

There are two other products, the Congres-sional Record Index and the bound Record, re-lated to the daily Record. The Index is createdlargely by hand and is published by GPO bi-weekly, though automation has been intro-duced to speed up this process. The yearly in-dex accompanies the bound Record. The bound

copy of the Congressional Record requires asecond revision to the daily Record with newphotographic plates created. Production of thebound Congressional Record is a number ofyears behind; the last bound volumes publishedcovered the years 1982 (vol. 128) and 1985 (vol.131) with work proceeding concurrently onyears 1986, 1984, and 1983 (vols. 133,130, and129). The last Index produced was for the year1980 with the 1981 Index due out in 1988, andthe 1982 Index also in production and expectedto be completed in late 1988.

Dissemination

Over 22,000 copies of the Congressional Rec-ord are distributed daily when Congress is insession. Distribution is made mostly on a pre-determined basis, with many copies distrib-uted free to individuals and organizations asrequired by law or designated by Members ofCongress. SupDocs also sells single copies ofthe Record. Each Member of the House is al-located 25 copies of the Record to distributeand each Senator, 37 copies.5 Recipients canrequest copies of the Record in paper or micro-fiche format. For DLP distribution, the Rec-ord is a dual format item with libraries indicat-ing a preference for hard copy over microficheformats (942 for hard copy v. 307 for micro-fiche). Table 8-1 provides data on the currentGPO distribution of the Record. Several pri-vate firms also distribute microform and hard-copy versions of the Record.

Since July 1, 1987, Congressional Recordmagnetic computer tapes have been sold byGPO.6 Individual tapes can be purchased for$175 or yearly subscriptions at $29,300 fromthe SupDocs Sales Office. The tapes sold areequivalent to the printed copy with all “strip-ped in” corrections; there is a delay for the cor-rected computer tape of up to 72 hours.

Three commercial vendors, Legi-Slate, MeadData, and Congressional Quarterly, purchase

5 Microfiche copies of the record count as only one-third ofa hard copy in Member distribution quotas.

6 iA June 17, 1987 resolution by the Joint Committee onPrinting directed GPO to sell government publications in elec-tronic format.

—

189

Table 8-1 .—GPO Distribution ofthe Congressional Record

Microfiche Paper— —Free distributionDesignated by Representatives . . . . .Designated by Senators . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government departments . . . . .Joint Committee on Printing (additional

distribution to Congress) . . . . . .Depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .House of Representatives (by law) . . .Congress (officials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Press. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ex-members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Governors, independent

establishments . .Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public Printer ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sales DistributionSuperintendent of Documents

(subscriptions) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

676175

1

18306

25

3

83

100

7,7653,1472,788

2,002942680301202182174

403631

2,860SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office 1987

subscriptions to the Record tapes which areused in support of online services. Congres-sional Quarterly and Legi-Slate offer the Rec-ord online as a subscription service, charginga single yearly fee for unlimited searching.Mead Data Central charges an hourly connectfee. Each service has employed different searchand retrieval software; hence access to congres-sional information within each file is differentand varied.

GPO, utilizing its own tapes, has developedan online Congressional Record database foruse by Members and staff. This service is cur-rently being tested in several congressionaloffices and is planned to be offered to all con-gressional offices and support agencies withina year. The GPO online service will include Sen-ate and House proceedings, Extensions of Re-marks, the Daily Digest, and the CongressionalRecord Index. The system will provide elec-tronic search and retrieval capabilities, but isalso designed to facilitate the creation of sec-ondary products for Members and staff. TheHouse Information System Office (HIS) alsohas the Congressional Record full text onlinefor House Members and staff. HIS relies uponGPO tapes for original input into their onlinesystem. Finally, the Library of Congress pro-

vides search and retrieval of CongressionalRecord abstracts in the SCORPIO system.

Over two-thirds of the Members of the Sen-ate have purchased private sector services, pri-marily Legi-Slate, with congressional informa-tion online, whereas the House has relied uponHIS and its information services pursuant toa decision by the Committee on House Admin-istration.

The growing demand for an electronic ver-sion of the Congressional Record has gener-ated concern regarding the role of the GPO inthe future and the nature of its products. First,some have noted that an electronic Recordcould reduce sales of the hard copy version.Others contend the opposite, namely, that elec-tronic searching of the Record will boost salesbecause it will improve indexing and accessto the hardcopy version. Experience with someother information products has indicated that,when hard copy documents became availableelectronically, sales of the hard copy did notdiminish but, instead, increased. Also, to theextent that paper is the preferred format forcertain classes of users, the demand for papercopies of the Record is likely to be unaffected.

Second, a gradual shift to an electronic Rec-ord and phasing out of conventional printingcould eventually realize some productivity im-provements and savings at GPO. It would alsohelp cut costs if GPO were able to receive ahigher percentage of the Record input mate-rial in electronic form so as to minimize rekey-boarding.

Third, there could be changes in GPO netrevenues for the Record, both in paper and elec-tronic formats. Sales of the hard copy versionrealize $675,000 per year for SupDocs. Thebulk of the costs associated with producing theRecord are fixed and not heavily dependentupon the number of copies printed. A reduc-tion in the volume of copies printed could in-crease unit costs and reduce revenue to GPOunless prices were raised. Conversely, if theelectronic Record encouraged additionaldemand for the hard copy, GPO revenues couldincrease without significantly increasing costs.In terms of revenue, each of the 3 current com-

190

puter tape subscriptions is equivalent to over125 hard-copy subscriptions.

Fourth, HIS and private vendors are in a po-tentially competitive position with GPO withrespect to online access to the Record. Theserelationships need to be examined with respectto minimizing overlap and duplication (withregard to HIS), and to developing complemen-tary roles to the extent possible.

Fifth, there is concern within both Congressand GPO about the content and accuracy ofgovernment publications. GPO is striving toimprove the turnaround time for correctionsto the daily Record electronic database and,hence, to reduce the time lag for making cor-rected tapes available to subscribers. A pri-ority is to ensure that the online Record isaccurate and complete, regardless of the pro-vider. Some further Record corrections and re-visions are made by Members (approximately5 percent of the total material) after the cor-rected tapes go out, but prior to productionof the bound Congressional Record. There isno procedure at present for exchanging an in-correct or incomplete daily version for a revisedbound copy version of the computer tape. OnceGPO distributes the electronic tapes to sub-scribers, all control or revision of the informa-tion is lost.

The Record serves as a primary source fordetermining legal intent and is widely used bythe legal community and government alike tothis end. The ability to search the Record elec-tronically, particularly over several years,would aid in such research. There is concernthat the information maintained by the ven-dors will not match that found in the boundRecord. A related concern is that the new flex-ibility inherent in an online system allows forcutting and pasting of congressional informa-tion, creating anew information product, pos-sible not reflecting the appropriate context ofa Member’s vote or statements. Changes incongressional procedures regarding Membercorrections and revisions to the Record couldbe considered in order to minimize or eliminatecontent differences between the daily andbound Record.

Bill Status Information

With thousands of bills introduced by Mem-bers each Congress, it is important for indi-viduals or interest groups to monitor theprogress of legislation. Monitoring the statusof legislation requires tracking bills throughnumerous stages and different committee jur-isdictions. Entire bills can be included in otherpieces of legislation, and the official title maynot reflect the true or full content of the bill.It is possible to miss amendments to bills orother substantive changes if an individual isonly following a bill by number or title.

Current Practices

The Congressional Research Service (CRS)creates the hard copy Digest of Public Gen-eral Bill and Resolutions. This includes a sum-mary of bills introduced, the sponsor and co-sponsors of the legislation, and any actiontaken on the bill. Originally, the Digest wasprinted a number of times each year and pro-vided relatively frequent updates on legisla-tive action. Since CRS automated the Digest,it is only printed on an annual basis, and isnot a priority item, and thus is usually evenfurther delayed in reaching the public. How-ever, the Joint Committee on the Library hasrecently authorized the Library of Congressto discuss with GPO the possible sale of dailycomputer tapes prepared by CRS which up-date the online system.

The bill status system was one of the firstautomated information systems of Congress,and is a timely system reflecting Congressionallegislative action less than 12 hours after itoccurs. The Bill Status system is, in fact, 3 sep-arate systems which share information. TheHouse and Senate create computer tapes of allofficial actions taken within the chambers, andCRS develops bill digests, abstracts, and in-dexing for each bill introduced. Each bill is in-dexed by one or more categories to facilitatesearching. HIS, the Senate Computer Center,and CRS share their data and then create sep-arate comprehensive databases for their users.Users can search for bills by bill number, spon-sor, index terms, and more. Once identified,

—.

191

information is available on bill sponsors andco-sponsors, actions on bills at successivestages of the legislative process, and a sum-mary of the legislation. Within the LEG IS sys-tem for those bills reaching the floor votingstage, aggregate voting totals are available,though only the Members and staff can accesshow individual Members voted for the first 24hours after a vote; after this time, only theleadership can access this information.

The bill status system also permits retro-spective searching of previous legislation. Thiscapability is helpful when trying to shepherdcurrent legislation through the process and toresearch the history of prior legislation. Forexample, retrospective searching can illumi-nate types of legislation a Member tends tosponsor or co-sponsor or oppose, or determinethe types of legislation certain committees fa-vor or oppose. As a consequence, the previousyear’s data is maintained online. The abilityto search current and retrospective data onMembers has been used by interest groups, na-tional political parties, and individual candi-dates to gather information on Member’s vot-ing records, legislation introduced, supported,or opposed, and their legislative success rates.HIS and the Senate Computer Center will, fora Member, provide a summary of the individ-ual’s legislative efforts and the results. Com-parable services can be purchased from com-mercial sources by individuals or comparableinformation can be gleaned with considerableeffort from hard copy records.

Access to Bill Status InformationThe daily Calendar of the United States

House of Representatives provides a bill sta-tus chart of major legislation and a detailed“History of Bills and Resolutions. The Calen-dar is a product of the Office of the Clerk. Com-plete cumulative histories of legislation areprinted on the first legislative day of each weekthe House is in session, with subsequent dailylistings including only new action. Calendarsare distributed free by both Document Roomsand are also distributed to the depositorylibraries.

The Digest of General Bills and Resolutions,a CRS product, is disseminated to depositorylibraries and subscribers. The hard copy is lessaccessible than the electronic format for tworeasons. First, the hard copy is not timely orcurrent for those trying to keep abreast of con-gressional actions. Secondly, there is limitedindexing in the Digest, inhibiting easy bill iden-tification and tracking, particularly for thosebills amended more than once. However, asnoted earlier, GPO and the Library are explor-ing the possibility of making daily computertapes available to the private sector.

Private sector information products such asthe Congressional Quarterly and the NationalJournal track major legislation, but do notcover a full range of issues. CIS publishes anannual CIS Index of Legislative Case Histo-ries, with abstracts of those bills that becomelaw and some detailed analysis of major legis-lation. The Commerce Clearinghouse producesthe Congressional Index, a looseleaf service,containing the status of both congressional andstate legislative bills, listed by number. Thereis also a daily tracking service available fromCommerce Clearinghouse, known as the Con-gressional Legislative Reporting Service.

Both the House and Senate Bill Status Of-fices respond to phone requests from theirchambers. Public requests are directed to theHouse LEG IS office, located in the Clerk’s of-fice, for an oral response or for a hard copy ofthe relevant print out from the LEGIS sys-tem. The cost of the LEGIS print out is $0.20per page with a $5.00 minimum. Table 8-2 de-tails the volume of external and internal phonerequests for bill status information handled bythe House LEGIS system.

Members and congressional staff have directaccess to LEG IS from their own terminals. Itis possible to specify bills of particular inter-est and receive updated information wheneverthere is action on this legislation. Most con-gressional offices respond to constituent re-quests for bill status information, but thereis no information on how many requests areanswered in this fashion. Terminals are avail-able to the public at the Library of Congress

192

Table 8-2.—Volume of Telephone Bill Status RequestsHandled by the House LEGIS Office

Total number of requests andpercent of total by year

Source of request 1984 1985 1986

House offices . . . . . . . . . . . 183,635 152,062 137,839(66%) (65%) (64%)

Senate offices . . . . . . 6,438 5,331 5,684(2%) (2%) (3%)

Others (public andagencies) . . . . . . . . . . . 87,420 72,811 82,648

(32%) (33%) (33%)SOURCE House LEGIS Office, 1987

to access the bill status system. This systemdoes not permit public access to informationon a Member’s voting record or to tag certainbills for monitoring on a continuous basis.

A number of commercial firms have devel-oped online databases with bill status infor-mation. Vendors purchase bill text computertapes from GPO; the vendors then add addi-tional information such as action on bills andvoting records of Members, and necessary

search and retrieval software. Legi-Slate, Con-gressional Quarterly’s Washington Alert Sys-tems, and Commerce Clearinghouse’s ELSSor Electronic Legislative Search System, arecurrent online services offering bill status in-formation, all with differing capabilities, pric-ing schedules, and information.

In sum, there are multiple avenues for dis-semination of bill status information, but withdiffering levels of access and cost. In the caseof bill status information, electronic informa-tion technologies employed to improve con-gressional operations have, at the same time,altered access by the public to this same in-formation. Members of the public who rely ononly the printed versions of the bill status in-formation, the Digest of General Bills andResolutions and Major Legislation of the Con-gress, have access to retrospective informa-tion, but not to current information about thelegislative process.

DISSEMINATION PRACTICES OFCONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES

Several congressional support agencies wereestablished by Congress with the primary pur-pose of providing Members and staff withinformation and analyses for congressionaldecisionmaking. In the process of assistingCongress, the agencies develop numerousinformation products. Each agency employsdiffering access and dissemination practices,and the introduction of electronic informationtechnologies presents new opportunities andchallenges with respect to their philosophiesand operations concerning public access. Dis-semination practices of three of the congres-sional support agencies, the Office of Technol-ogy Assessment (OTA), the General AccountingOffice (GAO) and the Congressional ResearchService (CRS) of the Library of Congress arebriefly described. Some of the changes and op-portunities resulting from the introduction of

technologies are discussed in the followingsection.7

Office of Technology Assessment

OTA was established in 1972 to provide Con-gress with information on a wide range of pub-lic policy issues concerned with scientific andtechnological change. OTA was created to rem-edy a perceived lack of objective, non-partisan,and expert analyses on scientific and techni-cal issues relevant to congressional deliber-ations.

OTA’s organizational structure and the na-ture of its work processes set it apart from itssister agencies. OTA is governed by the Tech-

‘Dissemination practices for the Library of Congress and theCongressional Budget Office are not discussed.

193

nology Assessment Board (TAB), composedof 12 Members of the House and Senate. TheTAB determines which assessments OTA staffwill undertake based on proposals developedby OTA staff and requested by either the chair-man, ranking minority member, or a majorityof committee members of any congressionalcommittee. If approved by the Board, theseassessments can take up to 2 years to com-plete and are comprehensive in nature.

Throughout the study process, OTA researchefforts are open for external review and pub-lic participation. This process includes exten-sive use of outside consultants, formal reviewsby panels of experts, distribution of draftreports and papers to interested parties, andextensive internal and external review priorto publication. The Technology AssessmentAct of 1972 (Public Law 92-484) stipulates thatOTA products (as distinct from the researchprocess) may be made publicly available:

Assessments made by the Office, includinginformation, surveys, studies, reports andfindings related thereto, shall be made avail-able to the initiating committees of Congress.In addition, any such information, surveys,studies, reports, and findings produced by theOffice may be made available to the publicexcept where—(1) to do so would violate secu-rity statutes; or (2) the Board considers it nec-essary or advisable to withhold such informa-tion . . .

OTA offers a number of information productsto the public, including final reports, one-pagebriefs of each report, and summary documentswhich highlight the full reports. OTA also pro-duces staff papers, technical memoranda, spe-cial reports, background papers, testimony,and contractor reports. OTA draft reports, tes-timony, and other materials are keyed in onword processors. A “paste up” camera readyversion of the final assessment is prepared byOTA publishing staff using electronic photo-composition where possible, and this versionis then sent to GPO for printing.

There are multiple avenues for dissemina-tion of OTA information products. Summaryreports are sent out to congressional staff andMembers, interested persons on OTA mailinglists, and individuals and organizations re-questing information on a particular subject.Full reports are also sent out, but to a morelimited mailing list, usually including studyparticipants, advisory panel members, and in-terested congressional staff and members.OTA reports can be purchased from the GPOSupDocs, and from NTIS; NTIS also stocksselected OTA contractor reports. Sales of OTAreports vary widely depending upon the topicand press coverage. GPO may sell several hun-dred to over 25,000 copies of a report.

OTA reports are available to depository li-braries. Of the depository libraries, 771 electto receive OTA reports. OTA reports are dis-tributed in hard copy or paper, but contractorreports are only available in microfiche.

The OTA Information Center receives a num-ber of telephone calls per month to confirm areport title, learn how to purchase an OTA re-port, inquire about a study, and the like. TheInformation Center is open to the public, andsome users rely on the Center for access toOTA reports. The Information Center alsomaintains QuOTAtion, an in-house databaseof OTA publications. This file includes cita-tions to 375 reports, staff papers, and techni-cal memoranda. The database is used to an-swer staff and public information requests.

The OTA Publishing Office produces OTAPublications (annually) and Assessment Activ-ities (quarterly) pamphlets; these are widelydistributed. This office also responds to numer-ous inquiries for OTA reports-and other pub-lications.

OTA provides summaries and reports to con-gressional staff for mailing to constituents inresponse to information requests. This distri-bution is in addition to copies sent by OTAto congressional offices at-the completion ofa project. Practically all formal OTA informa-

194

tion dissemination is in the form of printed doc-uments. There have been a few videotapes, au-diotapes, and diskettes produced in connectionwith specific projects.

General Accounting Office

GAO was established in 1921 as the auditorfor the Congress, and today this role has broad-ened to include agency program reviews to bet-ter assist committees and Members. These re-views can include social, organizational,technical, and financial aspects of programsand activities.

GAO assists Congress with a number of in-formation services. Program reviews are car-ried out in response to specific congressionalrequests from committee chairman, rankingminority members, and/or individual members.GAO also has a significant number of on-goingreviews required bylaw. The agency’s primaryfunction, the provision of audits and programevaluations, is supplemented by other servicessuch as provision of legal services to Congresson issues concerning government programsand activities, and reviews of proposed reci-sions and deferrals of government funds. Otherservices include “resolving bid protests thatchallenge government contract awards, assist-ing government agencies in interpreting thelaws governing the expenditure of publicfunds, and adjudicating claims for and againstthe government."8

GAO produces a number of research prod-ucts for Congress. This can include fact sheets,testimony, staff studies, Comptroller GeneralDecisions, and briefing and detailed reports.Fact sheets provide limited background infor-mation, no conclusions, and pertinent informa-tion on specific questions. Staff studies arecompilations of previously produced GAO andother work on a given subject. Comptroller De-cisions are rulings from the Comptroller Gen-eral on personnel and procurement issues.Detailed reports provide in-depth informationon the operation and background of agency

8 GAO, Serving the Congress (Washington, DC: GAO, n.d.)p. 20.

programs and include conclusions and recom-mendations. Briefing reports contain much ofthe same information found in detailed reports,including conclusions and possible recommen-dations but provide less background data. Ta-ble 8-3 summarizes the volume of GAO infor-mation products distributed in 1987.

All unclassified GAO products are availableto the public through a variety of channels.9

●

●

●

●

First, GAO maintains a mailing list of in-terested parties who receive copies ofselected materials.Second, individual depository libraries canelect to automatically receive all or se-lected GAO reports.Third, GPO maintains a distribution out-let (operated by a contractor) that handlesorders for GAO materials. The first fivecopies of GAO reports are free to reques-tors with a $2.00 fee for each copy there-after.Fourth, GAO publishes several newslet-ters or pamphlets announcing their pub-lications: a monthly pamphlet entitled

‘Requesting committees control the time of release of someGAO materials.

Table 8.3.—GAO Information Products Distributedin Fiscal Year 1987

FreeProduct distribution SalesBriefings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,616Fact sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,606Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536,582 15,508aStaff studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,684Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,812Solicitor General’s decisions . . 8,296Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,930Memos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,932

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 954,024b

Depository library standing ordersGAO Annual Report . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .802 (microfiche)Reports to Congress . ...............587 (microfiche)Bibliographies of publications . .......651 (microfiche)Documents, catalog of reports,

decisions, testimony . .... . . . . . . . . .653 (paper)Comptroller General decisions and

testimony . . . . . . . . . ...............505 (microfiche)a Virtually all sales are of Reportsb 484,782 of the free items distributed did not involve a specific request, but rather

were sent to individuals on established maiIing Iists.

SOURCE: General Accounting Office and U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987

195

Reports Issued in . . . (listing of currentmonth); an Annual Index of Reports Is-sued in FY 19xx; a monthly catalog ofGAO publications entitled GAO Docu-ments; and bibliographies on specific sub-jects such as Energy, Health, and the like.A newly revised and reinstated service,the GAO Journal, is intended to serve asan internal communication tool and as ameans of informing a larger public au-dience about GAO’s activities.

GAO maintains an online bibliographic data-base in its Information Handling and SupportFacility (IHSF). This facility is contractor oper-ated and provides bibliographic cataloging, in-dexing, and abstracting of GAO documents.The IHSF facility also maintains the documentinventory which contains GAO Audit Reports(Reports, Fact Sheets, and Briefing Reports)from 1978 to the present and some from asearly as 1972. This facility processes requestsfor copies of GAO materials. In 1987, the IHSFreceived over 190,000 requests. Of these,nearly 30,000 involved database searches totrack or locate information products. GAOproducts are disseminated in hard-copy formatbut originate in electronic form. Short reports,those under 60 pages, are printed in-house; anoutside contractor is employed for the elec-tronic photocomposition phase of the printingprocess. Longer reports are printed by GPO.

Congressional Research Service

CRS provides both immediate and in-depth,detailed analyses on all subject areas of inter-est to Members of Congress and staff. As thereference and research arm of Congress, CRSdraws upon the broader resources and serv-ices of the Library of Congress. The CRS be-gan as the ‘legislative reference bureau’ (laterknown as the Legislative Reference Service)in 1914 to better respond to Congressional in-quiries as distinct from library operations andfunctions. The Legislative Reorganization Actof 1946 authorized the Legislative ReferenceService as a permanent department within theLibrary, and the development of staff special-ists in a wide range of subjects. The Legisla-

tive Reorganization Act of 1970 provided thenewly named Congressional Research Servicewith research, administrative, and fiscal au-tonomy within the Library and expanded CRScapabilities and services.

CRS produces a variety of information prod-ucts for Members and staff. These productsinclude responses to telephone inquiries, con-fidential reports, CRS reports, issue briefs, infopacks, and databases, among others.

CRS receives well over 1,000 inquiries perday from Congress and responded to a totalof 443,400 inquiries in 1987. CRS performs con-fidential analyses on policy issues for Mem-bers and committees. These analyses remainthe property of the requestor unless the Mem-ber or committee explicitly provides approvalfor a wider dissemination. Annual appropria-tions language prohibits CRS from publishingits research without prior approval of one ofCRS’ oversight committees. While 10 percentof CRS research is published by Congress incongressional documents such as hearings, 90percent of CRS research remains unpublished.

CRS Reports, Issue Briefs, and Info Packsare three products developed for use by Mem-bers and staff. CRS Reports are in-depth,longer term analyses on particular subjectareas whereas Issues Briefs are short and suc-cinct analyses of pressing policy issues. EachIssue Brief contains information on currentlegislation, relevant hearings and documents,a chronology of events, and a bibliography, allpertinent to the topic of interest. Congress hasonline access to Issue Briefs. Info Packs aredesigned to satisfy general audiences, andthese packs include a collection of clippings,CRS Reports, speeches, and the like. Over 100Info Packs are actively maintained on a broadrange of subjects.

CRS also produces an SDI (selective dissem-ination of information) online and in offlineprint-outs for congressional staff. Congres-sional staff develop a profile of policy inter-ests, and the CRS database is searched weeklyto alert staff to new articles, or other informa-tion products on these topics. Staff, followinga review of the SD I information, can order spe-

196

cific articles of interest. Some of the SDI in-formation is maintained within the Library’soptical disk project, which maintains full textof over 70 periodicals.

CRS maintains several of the files in SCOR-PIO, the Library of Congress’ automated in-formation system. The legislative file (as dis-cussed earlier), the bibliographic citation file,and the issues file are the responsibility of CRS.

CRS actively disseminates its products tocongressional offices. For example, once re-leased, reports and issue briefs are listed in theannual Guide to CRS Products, with new prod-ucts highlighted in the monthly Update. SomeCRS products are also announced in the CRSReview, a digest of recent CRS policy analy-ses. It is published 10 times each year for con-gressional use and is sold by GPO to the public.When responding to congressional informationcalls, these same products may be a part ofthe information package offered to staffs. Fi-nally, CRS information products are listed inthe Citation File (CITN) which is available on-line to all congressional offices through theSCORPIO system.

The CITN file is a bibliographic database de-signed to support the research needs of theCRS research staff and congressional clientsand includes citations to articles, reports, andpapers of potential relevance to congressionalpolicy making. An abridged form of this file,BIBL, is available to the public via terminals

in the Library of Congress. Those items notdirectly available to the public such as CRSReports are excluded from the database. TheCITN file is undergoing revision at present andwill eventually be replaced by two files: a CRSProducts File, and a public policies literaturefile. The new products will augment the cur-rent bibliographic information with a one pagesummary of each CRS document, and are in-tended to both speed up the searching of filesand increase the awareness and accessibilityof CRS materials within the Congress.

Congressional offices serve as primary dis-seminators of CRS materials. CRS productscan be ordered by congressional staff via tele-phone, letter, or electronic mail. CRS cannotdetermine the amount of information used bycongressional staff for internal use versus thatordered to answer a constituent request forinformation. The volume of CRS products dis-tributed (in hard copy format) in 1987 is in-dicative of their use and popularity: about83,000 CRS Reports; 230,000 Issue Briefs; and166,000 Info Packs.

There is some dissemination of CRS materi-als through private sector services. For exam-ple, University Publications of America (UPA)offers a set of CRS Reports on microfilm anda limited index. This company does not receivethe information directly from CRS, but insteadreceives the materials, including Reports andsome Issue Briefs, through Member offices.

DISCUSSION OF CROSSCUTTING ISSUES

The incorporation of electronic informationtechnologies into congressional operations, itsdeliberations, the work of its support agencies,and of the GPO, changes access to congres-sional information by all participants in theprocess. The introduction of electronic tech-nologies to assist in the recording, manage-ment, and dissemination of congressional in-formation, in fact, challenges the traditionalmodes of information access and provides newopportunities for enhanced access by both Con-gress and the public to congressional informa-tion. The increasing use of these technologies

to support congressional operations presentsCongress with a new opportunity to examineits dissemination practices and to determinewhat level of access to congressional informa-tion should be afforded to the public beyondcurrent publicly and privately offered services.

Five key issues are discussed below.

Benefits of Electronic Formats

Electronic versions of congressional infor-mation involve considerably more than a new

197

storage medium for the production of the hard-copy document. There is an unlocking effectto information found in the electronic Congres-sional Record, for example, because of thesearch and retrieval capabilities inherent in on-line and CD-ROM systems. Electronic prod-ucts can permit a user to perform tasks thatare difficult or impossible through the manipu-lation of the hard copy version; a user can un-dertake full-text word searches, simultaneoussearches for segments indexed under morethan one term, automated cut and paste edit-ing, print on demand production, content anal-ysis through word counts, and more. Transferof information electronically increases timeli-ness, and has no geographic limitations.

There are several other criteria that can beapplied to compare dissemination formats,such as: timeliness, comprehensiveness, search-ability, ease of use, user support required,archivability, flexibility, and stability of thetechnology. The differences in accessing con-gressional information in different formats canbe better appreciated when these criteria areapplied to bill status information, as discussedbelow for illustrative criteria.

● Timeliness: Timeliness is the most importantcharacteristic for consideration of bill statusinformation. For the vast majority of users,bill status information has a relatively short“shelf life. For example, delayed knowledgeof when legislation passes through crucialstages (e.g., reporting from the full commit-tee) is no better than complete lack of infor-mation. Online formats permit access to up-to-date information whereas printed formatstypically provide the information on a muchless frequent (e.g., weekly or even annual)basis. CD-ROM potentially falls somewherein between.

● Comprehensiveness: Comprehensiveness isimportant in order to retrospectively ana-lyze previous related bills and to track fullythe history and status of current legislation.The cost of online formats may limit its his-torical completeness; CD-ROM may offerthe most complete and cost-effective cover-age.

● Searchability: The more specific a searcher’sinterests, the more important the ability tosearch for particular bills and sections ofbills. Online systems and CD-ROMs clearlyenhance the ability to search for specific leg-islation or topics of interest.

• Archivability: Historical bill status informa-tion is of interest when analyzing the rec-ord of prior legislative activity. Microformand CD-ROM appear to be best suited forarchival purposes.

• Flexibility: The flexibility of combining billstatus information in different ways can beimportant, (e.g., matching topics and spon-sors). Online and CD-ROM offer more flexi-bility to the extent this capability is needed.

● Stability of the technology: The technologyfor both printed and online formats is sta-ble. CD-ROM technology is still changingrapidly, although standards on readers anddisks protect to some degree against tech-nological change.

As with bill status information, access to in-formation in the Congressional Record is im-proved for the user when employing electronicinformation technologies and especially onlineservices. Access to committee reports, hear-ings, and prints typically is less time sensitive,and CD-ROM may be particularly helpful inensuring the availability and indexing of thesematerials.

The GAO Survey of Federal Information Usersfound that, for example, depository librariesalready make considerable use of congressionalinformation, primarily in paper format, withsome microfiche and online access (the lattervia private vendors). As shown in Table 8-4,the depository libraries desire to dramaticallyincrease their use of online and compact opti-cal disk formats, while reducing use of papermodestly and microfiche substantially. Morespecifically, the majority of depository librariesresponded that an online Congressional Rec-ord and online committee calendar and billstatus would be useful or greatly useful, assummarized in Table 8-5. CD-ROM format wasassessed as somewhat less useful than onlinefor these types of congressional information,but the majority of depository libraries re-

198

Table 8-4.— Library Use of Congressional Informationa by Format, Currently and in Next 3 Years

Number of libraries responding

Desire to use in Net change

Library group/Selected formats Currently use next 3 years Number Percent

Regional depository librariesPaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 41 – 5 –12Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 – 7 –70Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40 – 6 –15Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 + 5 +500Online data base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 24 +10 +71Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 + 2 +200Floppy disk... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

— —3 23 +20 +600

Selective depository librariesPaper .<....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 262 –40 –13Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 23 –30 –57Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 248 –54 –18Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13 +13 +Online database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 144 +83 +136Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 +1 +Floppy disk..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31 +31 +Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 112 +110 +5,500

Nondepository librariesPaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 90 – 9 – 9Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 + 3 +38Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 41 +10 +32Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3 + 3 +Online data base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 36 +23 +177Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 +10 +Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 21 +21 +aDefined as Congressional Record, Committee hearings and reports, and bills

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

Table 8-5.—Library Assessment of Usefulness of Congressional Information in Electronic Formats

Number of libraries responding

Greatly Moderately SomewhatLibrary group/information product useful Useful useful useful

Regional depository librariesCongressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13 9 2CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13 5 3

Committee calendar and bill statusOnline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8 6 1CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14 6 4

Selective depository librariesCongressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 87 68 58CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 103 57 65

Committee calendar and bill statusOnline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 65 46 63CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 66 55 77

Non depository librariesCongressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 21 36 39CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 30 27 32

Committee calendar and bill statusOnline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 19 29 33CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 19 27 36

Littleor no

22

14

3336

4976

6678

7985

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988—

199

spending felt that the CD-ROM format wouldstill beat least moderately useful. Overall, thenondepository libraries assessed electronic for-mats as less useful than did the depositories,but the majority of nondepository respondentsstill rated electronic formats as at least some-what useful.

In sum, electronic formats do permit en-hanced access to a variety of congressionalinformation, as reflected in the desire of thelibrary community (and especially the deposi-tories) to increase use of electronic formats.

Congressional Responsibility forElectronic Access

Congress has a long and valued tradition asan open political institution, sharing its infor-mation with a wide range of groups and indi-viduals. Public access to congressional infor-mation is a dynamic concept and dependentupon a number of avenues of disseminationusing various technologies. The use of elec-tronic information technologies enhances con-gressional operations but at the same timeproduces some inequities in public access tocongressional information. As more electronictechnologies are incorporated into congres-sional processes, Congress will find it neces-sary to consider what level of public access tocongressional information in electronic formatsis desirable.

The debate concerning congressional infor-mation is no different than that with other gov-ernment information. The debate is focused onthe level of and type or format (paper, micro-fiche, and/or electronic) of public access. Someargue that as long as paper and microfiche doc-uments are available to the public, then a suffi-cient level of access is permitted. In contrast,others contend that characteristics of the elec-tronic media, for example, search and retrievalcapabilities and timeliness, are so powerfulthat lack of comparable access to these formatsconstitutes inequitable access to congressionalinformation. In this view, failure to providecomparable access to these products will ex-acerbate the gap between the information“haves and have nets. ” The arguments as put

forth by those advocating a more active con-gressional role in the dissemination of congres-sional information and those supporting a morelimited congressional role are presented below.

If one accepts the need for Congress to in-sure equitable access to congressional infor-mation in electronic formats, then the debateshifts to how equitable access should be pro-vided. A key question concerns the role of theprivate sector. Private vendors have suggestedthat the most cost-effective way to provide ac-cess would be for Congress to contract withvendors, presumably on a competitive basis,for bulk rate online services made available to,for example, depository libraries. The Senatecurrently has a bulk rate contract with Legi-Slate for online congressional information.

On the other hand, Congress could offer itsown online information services (e.g., via HISand/ or GPO) to the depositories libraries andeven the broader public. Advocates argue thata direct congressional role would help guaran-tee the accuracy and continuity of the infor-mation provided, would ensure at least a min-imum level of electronic access to the generalpublic, and would be cost-effective by utiliz-ing systems already developed for internal con-gressional use.

Private vendors argue that such a congres-sional role would duplicate private offerings,be a wasteful use of public funds, unfairly com-pete with commercial enterprise, and possiblyresult in excessive reliance on Congress as thesource of congressional information with theattendant potential for manipulation and con-trol of information flow. However, at the sametime, vendors point out that their services arestate-of-the art and that it is unlikely that HISor GPO would catch up soon or ever. If true,then it would seem rather unlikely that HISor GPO offerings would be very competitivewith private sector services. Perhaps morelikely, Congress would itself provide a basiclevel of subsidized, low cost electronic access.and vendors would provide highly enhancedaccess to those who need and can afford to payfor such services. Even here, Congress couldnegotiate bulk rate contracts with vendors to

200

the extent highly enhanced service was neededfor congressional and/or depository libraryusers.

In considering the issue of public access tocongressional and, in fact, all government in-formation, three potentially competing goalsimpinge on the discussion. These goals relateto efficiency, equity, and cost. The desire toincrease the efficiency of producing congres-sional information and also to make it moreusable by Congress has led to extensive inter-nal applications of and investment in informa-tion technology (which will continue to changeand improve), and this, in turn, has resultedin unequal access to congressional informationby the public. For example, with the develop-ment of the online capabilities for bill statusinformation, Congress made a clear choice infavor of an electronic format in response tolegislative information needs and demands.However, the production and distribution of

congressional information involves significantexpense, and Congress must balance the needfor subsidized public access to congressionalinformation against these production and dis-semination costs.

The GAO survey found that libraries, per-haps typical of many public users, are willingto pay only modest amounts for electronic for-mats. As shown in Table 8-6, relatively fewlibraries are willing to pay more than about$25 per hour for online congressional informa-tion or about $50 per CD-ROM. Considerationby Congress of possible new disseminationtechniques in concert with current methods(e.g. the depository library program) will af-fect future public access to congressional in-formation and ultimately the degree to whichthe public is an active participant in the polit-ical process. In many respects, the resolutionof these issues may be just as significant as

Table 8-6.—Library Willingness to Pay for Congressional Information in Electronic Formats,Maximum Acceptable Charge

Number of libraries willing to pay

$1-$9 $10-$24 $25-$49 $50-$99 $100 +Information product/library group per hour per hour per hour per hour per hourCongressional Record online

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 11 2Selective depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—98 81 48 15 1

Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 16 15 9 1Committee calendar/bill status online

Regional depository libraries ... . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 8 2 1Selective depository libraries ... . . . . . ... ... . 110 66 43 13 2Nondepository libraries . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 17 13 5 1

Willing to pay

$1-$19 $20-$49 $50-$199 $200-$499 $500-$999 $1000+ --per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM

Congressional Record CD-ROM -

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . 17 12 3 1 1Selective depository libraries . . . . . .

—119 71 22 6 1 1

Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . 55 24 4 1 — 1Committee calendar/bill status CD-ROM

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . . 20 10 1 — 1 1Selective depository libraries . . . . . . . 141 41 14 4 1 1Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 13 3 1 — 1

aExcludes "do not know” responses (about 50 Percent) and “not willing to pay anything" (about 1 Percent)

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

201

prior decisions on radio and television cover-age of congressional proceedings.

Need for an Index to CongressionalInformation.

A vast amount of information is developedto support congressional operations. This in-formation, as described previously, is createdand disseminated in a combination of paper,microfiche, and electronic formats. Most of thisinformation is available to the public, thoughnot always in the same format as it is avail-able to Congress. There is no central govern-ment produced index or catalog of congres-sional publications. Some items for sale at GPOare listed in the GPO Publications ReferenceFile (in microfiche or on-line via DIALOG) andin the GPO Monthly Catalog of United StatesPublications (in hard copy or online from anumber of vendors). There are also private sec-tor indexing products available for a fee.

Several channels of access to congressionalmaterials are available to the public, and howone chooses to access congressional informa-tion can depend upon the information needed,the skill level of the requestor, the financialresources of the requestor, and the geographiclocation, and personal or political contacts ofthe requestor. There is also no common dis-semination policy employed by congressionaloffices and support offices. The introductionof electronic media to congressional operationspresents Congress with the opportunity to im-prove public access to congressional materi-als, and this improvement could be effected,in part, through better tracking and indexingof congressional information. If Congress de-termines that an index is needed to facilitateimproved access to congressional information,then Congress could authorize one (or more)of its offices to create an index, or could con-tract with a private or not-for-profit vendor forsuch service.

Role of GPO

As described in chapter 4, “Alternative Fu-tures for GPO, ” GPO already uses electronicphotocomposition for many types of congres-sional documents or significant portions ofthese materials. As a result, congressional doc-uments originate in electronic format, yet aredisseminated in a printed format. This shiftin GPO’s production technologies presentsCongress with the opportunity to disseminateits information in printed and/or electronicformats.

There are a number of trends and issues con-sidered throughout this report which relate tothe role of GPO. First, as described in chap-ters 2, 3, and 4, and in this chapter, the Fed-eral Government as a whole is increasinglyadopting information technologies in supportof on-going programs and agency missions.Second, the hard copy or printed version of adocument (if it still is printed) becomes, increas-ingly, a byproduct of the electronic publishingprocess. Third, there is no common informa-tion dissemination policy within the executivebranch and Congress which specifies how gov-ernment information is to be disseminated inother than hard copy or microfiche format ( seech. 11 for a discussion of policy issues). Fourth,GPO is a primary avenue for dissemination ofgovernment (including congressional) informa-tion to the public through the depository li-brary program and SupDocs, and there is adebate as to which electronic products to dis-seminate and how.

Some electronic databases created in supportof the printing process (e.g. for the Congres-sional Record) are already for sale by SupDocs.This practice is consistent with the sale oftraditional hard copy or microfiche productsin that GPO is providing to the public anotheravenue and format for dissemination of gov-ernment information; this practice could be ex-tended to a wide range of congressional infor-mation in electronic formats. Some members

202

of the information industry have expressedconcern about the potential for competitionwith private enterprise if the GPO role in elec-tronic information expands. The InformationIndustry Association has previously taken theposition that the “government should only pro-vide those information products and serviceswhich are essential to society’s wellbeing andwhich are not, and cannot be, provided by theprivate sector’’.10

GPO’s role in electronic media has alreadychanged and is likely to change further, if onlybecause GPO’s primary client, Congress, isrequesting products in electronic formats. Inproviding electronic formats to Congress, how-ever, GPO is positioned to more actively par-ticipate in disseminating electronic formats tothe public at large. The previous discussion ofcongressional responsibility for electronic ac-cess and the role of the private sector is rele-vant here. Congress is in a unique position toassist GPO in defining its responsibilities withrespect to congressional information dissemi-nation in an electronic age.

Need for Congressional Coordination

Congress invests over $100 million annuallyin automation activities, and this figure hasincreased steadily since the 1970s.11 This in-vestment in information technologies has beenmade by Congress in response to legislativeneeds and demands, and to technological op-portunities. Recognizing the size and natureof this investment, Congress established thePolicy Coordination Group (PCG) in the late1970s to “coordinate the development oftechnology-supported information systemsduring the present and succeeding Con-gresses. "12 This group’s actions were success-ful, but, recently, its coordinating efforts havediminished. Given the importance and com-plexity of the congressional information tech-nology activities, Congress may wish to consider

‘[’Information Industry Association, “Public Policy Activi-ties of the Information Industry Association, ” June 1987, p. 26.

‘] Congressional Research Service, “The Legislator as Userof Information Technology, ” Dec. 28, 1987, p. 3.

“Ibid., p. 18.

or examine its current automation practices,including information dissemination activities,evaluate the current and anticipated informa-tion needs of the legislative branch, and pos-sibly establish new or revised coordinationmechanisms.

The 1987 CRS report, “The Legislator asUser of Information Technology, ” describesmany of the resources available to Congress.For example, it is estimated that there are5,000 computer terminals connected to theSenate computer support system and between3,500 to 4,000 terminals within the House ofRepresentatives. This does not include termi-nals and related equipment supporting othercongressional offices. In the Senate, the Com-mittee on Rules and Administration estab-lishes overall policy for computer related oper-ations, and the Committee has supported anddeveloped a combination of four systems toaddress Senate automation and informationrequirements. The systems serve different of-fice and legislative functions, and included inthis resource base is the ability to access com-mercial online information systems. In theHouse, the Committee on House Administra-tion and its Subcommittee on Office Systemsdetermine House information policies and prac-tices, and the House Information Systems(HIS) is responsible for information systemsplanning and operations. For example, HISoperates the Members Information System(M. I. N.) which includes newswire services, in-formation services such as LEGIS, govern-ment statistics, the Congressional Record infull text, federal funding files, and administra-tive services such as electronic mail, schedul-ing information, and the like.

The Congressional support offices–CBO,CRS, the Library of Congress, GAO, OTA, andGPO—are all in different stages of automation,each with differing future plans and goals forincorporating electronic media within their pro-grams. Appropriate use of electronic informa-tion systems permits these offices to improvetheir operations, and hence their service to Con-gress, but, also, increases the amount and typesof possible interactions with other institutionsand the options for information disseminationto the public.

203

The expanding use of electronic dissemina-tion may necessitate that Congress review, inparticular, policies on public dissemination ofsupport agency reports and materials. Asnoted earlier, GAO reports are publicly avail-able directly from GAO with the first five co-pies free to any requestor. OTA reports arepublicly available but, for most requestors, viathe GPO sales program and at the establishedsales price and sometimes via private vendorswho reprint OTA documents. OTA one-pagebriefs and summary reports are available freeto the public. CRS reports are available freeto all member offices, and to the public throughthese offices at the discretion of members. Onlyabout one-tenth of CRS reports are availabledirectly to the public. The dissemination ofother support agency documents (e.g., GAOtestimony, OTA staff papers, CRS issue briefs)is even more variable. Congress may wish toconsider revisions to existing policies to helpensure more equitable public access to supportagency materials, including the possibility ofconsolidated indexing and more consistent ap-proaches to pricing and availability.

Expanding electronic interactions will alsoinfluence and could change the nature of somecongressional operations. The cooperative pro-gram between the LOC and the Research Li-braries Group is illustrative. The Library’sLinked Systems Project (LSP) enables eightother libraries to input (online) cataloging in-formation into the LOC’s computer. And workis currently underway which will permit theexchange of bibliographic data from computer

to computer using the LSP so that, when thedata is transmitted to the LOC, it can also beredistributed to other bibliographic utilities.The role of the LOC in the future, as it is seenby the new Librarian, James H. Billington,fully employs the electronic technologies:

By imaginatively using new technologies,for instance, we might aspire to share by theyear 2000 much of the substantive content andnot merely the descriptive catalog of thisremarkable national collection with citizensand students directly in their local communi-ties. Using new technologies boldly may en-able us to become less preoccupied with themeans and freer to pursue the ends of enhanc-ing the direct interaction between people andideas within and beyond the Library.

In sum, the integration of information tech-nologies into congressional operations is chang-ing the nature of congressional processes andthe possibilities for enhanced public access toinformation created, generated, and dissemi-nated by Congress. There is a window of op-portunity for Congress to examine the congres-sional information infrastructure (includingHouse, Senate, and support offices) in light ofchanging technology and user needs, and toconsider new or alternative ways to harnessthe technology to strengthen congressional in-formation dissemination and more fully real-ize the goal of public access.

13 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Adminis-tration. Confirmation Hearings of James Billington as Librar-ian of Congress, 100th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 1987.

Chapter 9

The Freedom of Information Actin an Electronic Age

. . . .

.$

\

JimPhoto credit: Mark MangoId, Bureau of the Census

Mainframe area, 1986, Bureau of the Census

CONTENTS

PageSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................209Applicability of FOIA to Electronic Media. . .........................210

Computerized Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........210Other Media... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............211

Defining the Limits of Searching Under FOIA . ......................213Traditional Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........213In the Computer Context: The Distinction Between Searching and

Progr amming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215Determining the Format of Information Delivered . . . . ...............221 -

Expanding the Legal Frontiers: Public Access to Software andOnline Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............222

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......222Online Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............223

Fee Assessment and Fee Waivers: Charged Issues in an Age ofElectronic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................225

New Technologies and the Need for Amending FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . ......226Electronic Information Technologies Are Obscuring the Boundary

Between Record and Nonrecord Material . ........................228Computers Are Facilitating Faster and More Complex Searches,

Thereby Encouraging a Broader Definition of a“Reasonable" Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........,229

Electronic FOIA Requests Can Be Incompatible With the WaysAgencies Collect and Organize Information . ......................230

Computer Searching Raises New Staffing and Budgetary Problems,as Well as Opportunities for Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

Federal Agencies Are Using Information Products Whose Statusis Unclear Under FOIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................233

Paper Printouts of Electronic Information May Not SatisfyPublic Access Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........234

Computers Are Prompting New Discussion About the BasicPurposes of FOIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................236

Chapter 9

The Freedom of Information Actin an Electronic Age

SUMMARY

When the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)was passed in 1966, Federal Government rec-ords were stored primarily in paper form; theact makes no mention of computer records.Since 1966, the installation and use of com-puter systems by Federal agencies has pro-ceeded at a dramatic pace. Agency regulationsand judicial interpretations have generally sup-ported the treatment of computer tapes andother non-paper media (such as motion pic-tures, video, and audiotapes) as agency recordsunder FOIA. However, significant unresolvedissues warrant congressional attention.

For example, the case law as applied to pa-per information establishes that FOIA doesnot require agencies to create new records infulfilling requests. When additional program-ming is required to extract information fromcomputer systems, agencies and courts havesometimes held that such programming wouldbe analogous to record creation, and thereforewould not be a required part of the FOIA“search’ process. In the electronic age, how-ever, some degree of reprogramming or pro-gram modification may be essential to obtainaccess to electronic information.

Another gray area involves defining a “rea-sonable effort on the part of the governmentin searching for records responsive to a FOIArequest. In the computer context, the program-ming/no programming distinction has begunto detach decisions about “reasonableness”from considerations of effort. This is incongru-ous with tradition, as significant expendituresof effort continue to be involved in manualFOIA searches. Retrieval of paper documentsmay involve extensive tracking, communica-tion with various bureaus, consolidation of dis-parate files, and substantial hand deletions ofexempted materials. As computer capabilitiesfor searching, segregating, and consolidating

of data become increasingly efficient and cost-effective, computer searches could be broad-ened and public access enhanced. Agenciesmay need to focus on designing new ways torespond more readily to FOIA requests forcomputer records.

Another issue is whether and under whatconditions the advantages of electronic for-mats are such that providing electronic accessshould be guaranteed. Although the case lawand the FOIA fee guidelines have establishedthat computer-stored information is subjectto FOIA, requesters are not guaranteed accessto the information in formats other thanpaper. If large quantities of data could be moreeffectively utilized with the flexibility offeredby magnetic tapes, disks, or online retrieval,access to these electronic media may be im-portant.

In several FOIA cases, the courts have ex-pressed a need for Congress to clarify the grayareas left open by the statute in its applica-tion to electronic information. In developingand considering possible amendments toFOIA, it is important to understand the typesand nature of emerging computer-related prob-lems. It is also important to consider new de-velopments in computer and database technol-ogy that could alleviate some of these problemsin the future. A synopsis of the issues is pre-sented below:

Electronic information technologies are ob-scuring the boundary between record andnonrecord material. As electronic data-bases become more sophisticated, they re-semble information “pools” rather thandiscrete records. For example, relationaldatabase technology allows data elementsfrom different pathways or “fields” to beconnected to one another in nonlinear com-

207

208

binations. The parallels to paper recordsare becoming more remote.

● Computers are facilitating faster and morecomplex searches, thereby encouraging abroader definition of a “reasonable” search.Given computer capabilities for expeditedsearching, segregating, and consolidatingof data, the definition of a “reasonable”search may need to be broadened.

● Electronic FOIA requests can be incompat-ible with the ways agencies collect andorganize information. Although this prob-lem also applies to FOIA requests for pa-per documents, computerized informationmanagement systems are aggravating theissue as they are relatively inflexible, withlimited capacity to respond to inquiriesin an ad hoc fashion. Evolving technol-ogies such as relational databases andhypertext could provide some solutionsin the future.

● Computer searching raises new staffing andbudgetary problems, as well as opportuni-ties for Federal agencies. Most agencieshave no computer programmers assignedto FOIA implementation. Requests forcomputerized records are generally givento personnel hired to operate internal in-formation management systems. Agencyuse of electronic technologies that wouldhelp administrative staff retrieve com-puterized information could ultimately en-hance public access to computer records.These technologies include preprogram-med utility software, front-end systemswith natural query languages, expert sys-tems, and optical disks.

● Federal agencies are using informationproducts whose status is unclear underFOIA. The status of computer programs(including computerized indexes, codes,and directories) is unclear, as is that of in-tegrated software and database packages.Electronic mail, quickly becoming a ma-jor mode of interdepartmental communi-cation, presents additional questions forFOIA.

● Paper printouts of electronic information

may not satisfy public access needs. Al-though the case law has established thatcomputerized information is subject toFOIA, agencies are not required to deliverthe information in machine-readable form.The option of encouraging or requiringagencies to provide alternative electronicformats– such as magnetic tape, floppydisk, optical disk, and online access—warrants consideration.

In resolving these issues, Congress may needto reconsider the purposes and goals of FOIA.If new procedures need to be instituted for anelectronic FOIA, the policies behind the pro-cedures should be evaluated and clarified. Com-puter records today bear few similarities to thepaper records of 1966. New database technol-ogies have begun to raise questions aboutwhether computer-stored information can evenbe conceptualized as discrete records.

For the 1990s and beyond, Congress mayneed to decide whether the FOIA should con-tinue to be viewed as an “access to records”statute, or whether it should be perceived morebroadly, as an “access to information” stat-ute. This is not to suggest that public accessto computer-stored government informationshould be unlimited; access must be balancedagainst economic and personnel constraints ofFederal agencies. However, due to the explo-sive growth in electronic information storage,processing, and transmission by the FederalGovernment, traditional views about recordsand searches may need to be modified to en-sure even basic access to computerized publicinformation.

The case law in many areas is too limited,conflicting, or vague to give consistent direc-tion to agencies and courts. Even in those areaswhere the case law is clear, variation in agencypractice suggests the need for greater statu-tory specificity. If Congress wishes to main-tain the integrity of FOIA in an electronic envi-ronment, the goals of the statute need to bereassessed and statutory amendment pursued.

209

INTRODUCTION

The passage of the Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA)l in 1966 eliminated the ambigu-ous public information provisions of theAdministrative Procedures Act,2 and shiftedthe burden of proof from the public to Feder-al agencies with respect to the withholding ofFederal information from public view. The actnot only created a “clear right” of access togovernment information for the press and pub-lic, but also made that right enforceable.3 Thepurpose of the act was to establish a “generalphilosophy of full agency disclosure unless in-formation is exempt under delineated language,and to provide a court procedure by whichcitizens and the press may obtain informationwrongly withheld.”4 In signing the bill intolaw, President Johnson articulated the spiritbehind the legislation: “I signed this measurewith a deep sense of pride that the UnitedStates is an open society in which the people’sright to know is cherished and guarded."5

In the years following the passage of FOIA,there has been substantial growth in FederalGovernment use of electronic information sys-tems. Estimates indicate that, when FOIA waspassed in 1966, about 3,000 mainframe com-puters had been installed by Federal agencies;microcomputers were not yet in use.6 Recentreports indicate that, by 1986, approximately25,000 mainframes and over 125,000 micro-computers were in place, representing a dra-

1 5 U.S.C. sec. 552.2 60 Stat. 238 (1946); 5 U.S.C. sec. 1002 (1964).3 Harold L. Cross, quoted in the FOIA Source Book, U.S.

Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommitteeon Administrative Practice and Procedure, 93rd Cong., 2d. sess.,1974.

4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Sub-committee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Freedomof Information, Hearings on S. 1663, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 1964.

“U.S. Senate, FOIA Source Book, op. cit., 1974.6 Martha Mulford Gray, U.S. Department of Commerce, Na-

tional Bureau of Standards, Institute for Computer Sciencesand Technology, Computers in the Federal Government: A Com-pilation of Statistics-J978, N.B.S. Special Publication 500-46(April 1979).

matic increase over a 20-year period.7 The useof electronic mail and other electronic infor-mation systems has also proliferated. For ex-ample, according to a 1986 Office of Technol-ogy Assessment survey, 97 of 134 Federalagencies and agency components respondingreported the use of electronic mail.8 The re-sults of the 1987 GAO survey summarized inchapter 2 indicate significant and growing Fed-eral agency use of electronic technologies andformats.

When a “paper statute” is applied in an eraof electronic information, its original idealsmay become more difficult to carry out. Draw-ing analogies in the courts between paper doc-uments and electronic information is often dif-ficult. Evolving problems in interpreting FOIAcould mean that new electronic technologiesmay serve as barriers to, rather than facilita-tors of, information disclosure under the act.

This chapter draws upon the existing bodyof FOIA case law addressing electronic infor-mation, and presents those FOIA cases involv-ing traditional paper records that have servedas precedents for decisions involving computerrecords. Inmost instances, cases are presentedchronologically, to provide an evolutionary per-spective on the lines of reasoning relevant toissues involving computerized records. Othersources of information that may help clarifyongoing debates, such as legislative historyand agency practice, are included.

Finally, the chapter provides an analysis oftrends in computer and database technologythat raise additional questions about the ap-plicability of traditional interpretations ofFOIA to current Federal information practices.

7 U. S. General Services Administration, Information Re-sources Management Service, Managing End User Computing

in the Federal Government, No. 2, September 1986.8 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal

Government Information Technology: Management, Security.Congressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, February 1986).

210

APPLICABILITY OF FOIA TO ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Although the term “records” is usedthroughout the text of FOIA,9 it is not de-fined. Absent statutory reference, applicationof FOIA to computer tapes and other nonpapermedia is determined by agency practice or ona case-by-case basis in the courts. To date, bothagency practice and the case law generally sup-port the treatment of computerized informa-tion as “records” under FOIA, although agen-cies are not necessarily required to provide theinformation in machine-readable form. In cer-tain commonly-occurring cases, the status ofcomputerized information still remains prob-lematic. For example, in instances where com-puter records require insertion of codes or someform of additional programming to be retrievedfrom computer systems, agencies and courtshave sometimes designated these efforts to besupplemental to the required FOIA “search”process.

According to the following decisions, theterm “records,” at least in principle, shouldbe applied to computerized information andother nonpaper media, including motion pic-tures, audio recordings, and videotapes.

Computerized Information

The history of discussion of computerizedFOIA records by Federal courts began in 1979,in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-cuit. In Long v. Internal Revenue Service, 10

the court vacated and remanded a districtcourt decision that had denied a request forelectronic information compiled by the IRS inits “taxpayer compliance measurement pro-gram. ” Speaking for the majority, JudgeKennedy stated:

. . . we dispose at the outset of any contentionthat computer tapes are not generally withinthe FOIA. The district court apparently de-termines that the term “records,” as used inthe Act, does not include computer tapes. Thisconclusion, however, is quite at odds with thepurpose and history of the statute.

‘5 U.S.C. sec. 552.‘0596 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1979).

Kennedy relied upon the Senate Report accom-panying the 1974 amendments to FOIA forits consideration of special problems of com-puter records in the context of search and copy-ing fees.11 In addition, he cited the TreasuryDepartment’s FOIA regulations which “makeexplicit provision for disclosure of ‘recordsmaintained in computerized form’,”12 and a1975 opinion by the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California that had af-firmed the accessibility of motion pictures un-der FOIA.13

Judge Kennedy concluded: “In view of thecommon, widespread use of computers by gov-ernment agencies for information storage andprocessing, any interpretation of the FOIAwhich limits its application to conventionalwritten documents contradicts the ‘generalphilosophy of full agency disclosure’ whichCongress intended to establish.14 We con-clude that FOIA applies to computer tapes tothe same extent it applies to any other doc-uments." 15

The United States Supreme Court addressedthe issue of computerized records in 1980. InForsham v. Harris,16 the Court referred tothe Records Disposal Act” to arrive at a def-inition of agency records under FOIA. Indelivering the opinion of the Court, JusticeRehnquist cited the Attorney General’s 1976Memorandum on the FOIA for its conclusionthat Congress intended the Records Act defi-nition to apply to FOIA:

. . . although Congress has supplied no defini-tion of agency records in the FOIA, it has for-mulated a definition in other Acts. The RecordsDisposal Act, in effect at the time Congressenacted the FOIA, provided a threshhold re-quirement for agency records: “records in-

llS. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong. 2d sess. 12 (1974), cert. denied,446 U.S. 917 (1980).

1’31 C.F.R. ssl.5(f) & 1.6(g) (3)(ii)(1977).13Save the Dolphins v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 404

F. !%qq). 407, 410-411 (N.D. Cal. 1975).“S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong. 1st sess. 3 (1965).‘3596 F.2d 362, 365 (9th Cir. 1979).16445 us. 16g, 186 (1980).‘T44 U.S.C. sec. 3301.

211

eluded all books, papers, maps, photographs,machine readable materials, or other documen-tary material, regardless of physical form orcharacteristics, made or received by an agencyof the United States Government under Fed-eral law or in connection with the transactionof public business . . . ." (emphasis added)18

A 1982 decision by the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia reaffirmed the ap-plicability of FOIA to computerized records.Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Administra-tion,19 concerned an appeal to the Drug En-forcement Administration (DEA) for the re-lease of computerized information and the useof computer-facilitated “disclosure avoidancetechniques” to conceal exempted private in-formation. Though the appellant request for“compacting” or concealing personal informa-tion was denied, the court acknowledged par-allels between manual and computer storage:“Although it is clear that Congress was awareof problems that could arise in the applicationof the FOIA to computer-stored records, theAct itself makes no distinction between recordsmaintained in manual and computer storagesystems."20 The court concluded that:

It is thus clear that computer-stored records,whether stored in the central processing unit,on magnetic tape or in some other form, arestill “records” for the purposes of the FOIA.Although accessing information from com-puters may involve a somewhat different proc-ess than locating and retrieving manually-stored records, these differences may not beused to circumvent the full disclosure policiesof the FOIA.21

Other Media

A small, yet important, body of case law hasestablished that various other media consti-tute records under FOIA. These cases havebeen cited in several decisions concerning com-puter generated materials.

‘“445 U.S. 169, 186 (1980).19678 F. 2d. 315 (D. C. Cir. 1982~.“’Ibid.21 Ibid.

Motion Pictures

In Save the Dolphins v. U.S. Departmentof Commerce,22 the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of California affirmedthat motion pictures constitute records sub-ject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA.The case concerned a nonprofit corporationthat sought access to a National Marine Fish-eries Service film documenting the incidentalkilling of dolphins in the nets of commercialtuna fishing boats. In attempting to determinethe status of motion pictures under FOIA, thecourt admitted to a lack of precedent in thearea: “The first question is whether the filmsought is a ‘record’ within the meaning of theAct (FOIA). The term is not defined in the Act.Neither do existing judicial interpretations ap-pear helpful in regard to the precise questionshere presented.”23 The court was forced todraw on examples from agency practice, cit-ing both the “Disposal of Records” chapterof the Public Printing and Documents Act24

and the General Services Administration def-inition of agency records, which includes “allbooks, papers, maps, photographs, or otherdocumentary materials, regardless of physi-cal form or characteristics . . . ."25 At the timeof the case, the Department of Commerce hadnot yet defined records in its regulations per-taining to FOIA.

The court’s decision in Save the Dolphinsreflected an interest in broad policy goals overnarrow “records” definitions:

The object of the Freedom of InformationAct is to make available to the public “infor-mation” in the possession of government agen-cies. The term “records” in common parlanceincludes various means of storing informationfor future reference. There does not appear tobe any good reason for limiting “records” asused in the Act to written documents. The mo-tion picture film in question was made in or-der to store the information it now contains;it therefore falls within the definition of“records” in 5 U.S. C. § 552.26

22404 F. &lpp. 407 (N.D. Cal. 1975).‘iIbid.“44 U.S.C. sec. 3301.2’141 C.F. R. sec. 105-60.104(a).26 404 F. Supp. 407 (N.D. Cal. 1975).

212

The important conceptual distinction be-tween whether FOIA applies to “records” nar-rowly defined or to ‘information’ broadly con-strued recurs throughout the FOIA debate incases involving computer-generated materials.

Audio Recordings

A 1976 decision by the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York, MobilOil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission27 hasbeen cited for its implied treatment of audiorecordings as FOIA records. The defendanthad requested copies of communications be-tween several Federal and State agencies per-taining to aspects of petroleum use. Althoughthe case dealt primarily with the applicabilityof pertinent FOIA exemptions, the court speci-fied that “all identifiable records must be madeavailable to the public on demand unless re-quested documents fall within one of the Act’snine exemptions. ” Mobil’s request encompassed“all communications including letters, reportsor memoranda, and notes, transcripts, or othermemorialization of oral communications. Dur-ing the proceedings, the FTC was ordered bythe court to search for any relevant tape record-ings and documents. Only after this search wascompleted did the court attempt to establishwhether Mobil’s request fell under FOIA ex-emptions.

Videotape

Murphy v. F. B. I.28, a 1982 decision by theU.S. District Court for the District of Colum-bia, concerned a New York Congressman’s re-quest for ABSCAM videotapes documentingalleged meetings between the Congressman

‘T406 F. !+lpp. 305 (S. D.N.Y. 1976).‘“490 F. Supp. 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

and undercover agents. Although the decisionconcerned whether or not the tapes constitutedinvestigatory records, subject to the law en-forcement exemption of FOIA, the court heldthat videotapes could be obtained at the con-clusion of the law enforcement proceedings:“[V]ideotapes which were exempt from disclo-sure prior to indictment can be obtained byaccused after indictment.”29

Although Albright v. United States30 is es-sentially a Privacy Act case, the judgment bythe U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia was based on FOIA’s inclusion ofvideotapes as public records. The case con-cerned the legality of the filming and reten-tion of a potentially damaging videotape bythe Department of Health, Education, andWelfare (HE W). The videotape documented aconfrontation between HEW employees andtheir supervisors. The plaintiffs maintainedthat storing videotapes of displeased employ-ees exercising their First Amendment rightsconstituted an unfair labor practice and a vio-lation of the Privacy Act. A copy of the video-tape had been provided by the agency to theemployees pursuant to a FOIA request filed3 years earlier. The court determined that:” Wedo not think the fact that the means of stor-ing information in this case was a videotapemakes it any less a record for the purposes ofthe Act. After citing the decision in Save theDolphins 31 concerning motion picture film,the court maintained that: “As long as the tapecontains a means of identifying an individualby picture or voice, it falls within the defini-tion of a ‘record’ under the Privacy Act.”32

29 Ibid.30631 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1980).31

404 F. Supp. 407, 410-411 (N. D. Cal. 1975).“631 F.2d 915, 920 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

213

DEFINING THE LIMITS OF SEARCHING UNDER FOIA

Traditional Interpretations

Although it has been established that FOIAapplies to records on computer tapes that arein government possession at the time of a re-quest, the status of information stored in com-puters is undercurrent dispute. The argumentsturn on the definition of what activities shouldconstitute searching under FOIA, and whatactivities extend beyond the realm of search-ing to records creation. The case law, as ap-plied to paper information, establishes that theFOIA does not require agencies to create newrecords in fulfilling requests. A history of rele-vant Supreme Court decisions is presented be-low. The difficulties involved in making anal-ogies between paper and computer-generatedmaterials will be discussed in a subsequentsection.

National Labor Relations Board v. SearsRoebuck, 33 a 1975 decision by the U.S. Su-preme Court, addressed the Labor Board’s at-tempted rejection of a request by Sears forcer-tain Advice and Appeals Memoranda used inlitigation proceedings. The Board argued, first,that the memoranda should be exempt fromdisclosure under FOIA Exemption 7 dealingwith law enforcement proceedings. Second, theBoard argued that the requirement to gener-ate explanatory material describing “circum-stances of the case” was beyond the reach ofFOIA. Although the Supreme Court remandedthe first objection, it held that describing the“circumstances of the case” constituted thegeneration of new materials, and was thus un-necessary for FOIA disclosure purposes:

The Act does not compel agencies to writeopinions in cases in which they would nototherwise be required to do so. It only requiresdisclosure of certain documents which the lawrequires the agency to prepare or which theagency has decided for its own reasons to cre-ate. Thus, insofar as the order of the court re-quires the agency to create explanatory ma-terial. it is baseless.34

In Forsham v. Harris,35 the Supreme Courtaddressed the issue of whether materials gen-erated by government contractors and remain-ing in the possession of contractors could beconsidered government records and subject toFOIA request. As in National Labor RelationsBoard, this case turned on whether or not theFOIA request would involve the creation ofnew records. Speaking for the majority, Jus-tice Rehnquist equated records creation withthe obtaining of records not previously heldby the agency:

. . . Congress contemplated that an agencymust first either create or obtain a record asa prerequisite to its becoming an ‘agency rec-ord” within the meaning of the FOIA. . . .[I]nthis context the FOIA applies to records whichhave been in fact obtained, and not to recordswhich merely could have been obtained.36

Justice Brennan, dissenting, denied thatgovernment possession was a requirement fordetermining what constituted a record: “Noth-ing whatever in the legislative history suggeststhat Congress meant to allow agencies to in-sulate important steps in decisionmaking onthe basis of the technical niceties of who ‘owns’crucial documents. ” In explaining his dissent,Brennan argued that a “close connection’ be-tween the government and the record wassufficient:

Where the nexus between the agency andthe requested information is close, and wherethe importance of the information to public un-derstanding of the decisions or the operationof the agency is great, I believe the congres-sional purposes require us to hold that the in-formation sought is an “agency record” withinthe meaning of FOIA.S7

Brennan added that if contractor informationwas not subject to FOIA, the institution ofgovernment contracting could ultimatelyshield public access to information:

‘)421 U.S. 132 (1975).“421 U.S. 132 at 161-162 (1975).

“’445 U.S. 169 (1980).‘0445 U.S. 169 at 186 (1980).]7445 U.S. 169 (1980).

214

Just as the explosion of Federal agencies,which are not directly responsible to the elec-torate, worked to hide the workings of the Fed-eral Government from voters before enact-ment of FOIA, the understandable tendencyof agencies to rely on nongovernmental gran-tees to perform myriad projects distances theelectorate from important information by onemore step. If the records of such organizations,when drawn directly into the regulatory proc-ess, are immune from public inspection, thengovernment by secrecy must surely return.38

In Kissinger v. Reporters Committee forFreedom of the Press39, the Supreme Courtonce again addressed the issue of whetherrecords outside of government hands at thetime of a request were subject to FOIA dis-closure. The plaintiff had questioned a jour-nalist’s access to transcripts of politically-significant telephone conversations. Originallyin government hands, the transcripts had sub-sequently been donated to a private libraryprior to the request. In delivering the opinionof the Court, Justice Rehnquist emphasizedthe distinction between existing records andrecord production: “When an agency has dem-onstrated that it has not ‘withheld’ requestedrecords in violation of the standards estab-lished by Congress, the Federal courts haveno authority to order the production of suchrecords under the FOIA.” Rehnquist cited thelegislative history to strengthen his argument:

Several sources suggest directly that agencypossession or control is prerequisite to trig-gering any duties under the FOIA. In thedebates, the Act was described as ensuring‘‘access to the information possessed by (gov-ernment) servants. ” (emphasis added)’”

He also referred to FOIA guidelines issued bythe Attorney General in 1966 for the use ofall Federal departments and agencies in com-plying with the new statute:

The guidelines state that FOIA “refers, ofcourse, only to records in being in the posses-

38 Ibid.39445 U.S. 136 (1980).

40 112 Cong. Rec. 13652 (1966), reprinted in FOIA SourceBook, S. DOC. No. 93-82, p. 69 (1974).

sion or control of an agency. , .” [It] imposesno obligation to compile or procure a recordin response to a request. (emphasis added)41

Justice Brennan, concurring and dissentingin part, determined that FOIA contained animplicit mandate for the government to retainthose records it had created, but did not con-tradict Rehnquist stance on record creation:

FOIA does not compel agencies to writeopinions where not otherwise required. FOIAneither compels the Government to conductresearch on behalf of private citizens, norduplicates administrative law requirements ofadequate explanation for Government action.. . . What the Act does mandate is exposure

of the research and explanations which thegovernment has chosen to memorialize; anagency’s obligation to retain records, there-fore, may be inferred from FOIA without con-tradicting the principle that agencies need notcreate records. (emphasis added)42

Although it is clear that agencies are not re-quired to create new records in response toFOIA requests, determining the point at whichsearching becomes records creation can be dif-ficult. Put another way, the definition of whatconstitutes a “record” may depend upon theviewpoints of agencies or courts on the pur-poses and goals of FOIA. These views will in-fluence whether or not records are perceivedto be tangible entities, or whether records aredefined more broadly, in terms of the informa-tion they may provide. The debate about thephysical nature of records pervades the FOIAcase law addressing paper records, and ishighly significant for cases involving computerrecords. Whether FOIA applies to some no-tion of a tangible ‘agency record’ or, instead,to “information in the abstract becomes a cru-cial distinction in the case of computer records,which may not exist in tangible form unlessmodified in some way.

In the Supreme Court’s decision in For-sham43, Justice Rehnquist embraced a nar-row definition of records, stating outright that

“Ibid.“445 U.S. 136 at 152 (1980).“445 U.S. 169 (1980).

“The FOIA deals with ‘agency records’, notinformation in the abstract. ’44 In his dissent,Justice Brennan drew upon the legislative his-tory to argue for a broader interpretation of‘‘records’ to account for the original purposesof the Act:

The Court concedes, of course, that the stat-ute itself does not define “agency records. ”Therefore, out task is to construe the statu-tory language consistently with the purposesof FOIA , . . FOIA is a broad enactmentmeant to open the processes of governmentto public inspection. It reflects a finding thatif left to themselves agencies would operatein near secrecy. FOIA was, therefore, enactedto provide access to information to enable “aninformed electorate,” so ‘‘vital to the properoperation of a democracy, to govern itself .45

In 1982, the Supreme Court in F.B.I. v.Abramson, 46 used a broad definition of rec-ords to limit access to exempted information.The Court addressed the issue of whether in-formation contained in records compiled forlaw enforcement purposes (and thus subjectto Exemption 7 of the FOIA) would lose itsexempt status when incorporated into recordscompiled for purposes other than law enforce-ment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Circuit had used a physicaldefinition of records to conclude that the ex-empt status would be lost when records wererecompiled into a new physical form. Accord-ing to the Supreme Court, because recompila-tion of the physical form of the documentswould not alter the basic nature of the infor-mation, the exempt status should remain. TheCourt’s decision was based on the “equiva-lence” of the information contained in the twosets of records:

We are of the view, however, that the statu-tory language is reasonably construable toprotect that part of an otherwise non-exemptcompilation which essentially reproduces andis substantially the equivalent of all or partof an earlier record made for law enforcementuses. (emphasis added)47

44 Ibid.‘“S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong. 1st sess. 3 ( 1965).“’456 U.S. 615 ( 1982).47 Ibid.

215

In dissenting, Justice Blackmun advocateda narrower definition of records: ‘‘I cannot es-cape the conclusion that the Court has simplysubstituted the word ‘information’ for the word‘records’ in Exemption 7 (C).” He citedForsham 48 to conclude that FOIA applied to“agency records, not information in the ab-stract.” Justice O’Connor, also dissenting, con-cluded that the Court was reaching beyondCongressional intent:

To reach its result, the Court assumes that,through inadvertence or inattention, Congress’pen slipped while amending Exemption 7 in1974, Proceeding on this basis, the Court help-fully undertakes to rewrite the Exemption,substituting for the statutory phrase ‘ ‘inves-tigatory records compiled for law enforcementpurposes” something like “records containinginvestigatory information originally gatheredfor law enforcement purposes. "49

In the Computer Context: TheDistinction Between Searching

and Programming

Can the distinctions between searching andrecord creation under FOIA be extended bysimple analogy to the computer context? It isclear that, in cases involving paper documents,the FOIA does not require agencies to createnew records on behalf of requesters. A fun-damental difference between computerizedrecords and hard copy records, however, is thatthe former may reside within computer sys-tems until they are specifically demanded.

Computerized government records may re-quire the application of codes or even addi-tional programming to be retrieved from hostsystems in systematic or comprehensible form.By extending analogies from cases involvingpaper records, the courts are creating distinc-tions between computer searching and com-puter programming, maintaining that pro-gramming is not required under FOIA, as itis analogous to record creation. As more in-formation becomes machine-readable, the line

48

445 U.S. 169 at 186 (1980).4 9456 U.S. 615 (1982).

216

between record searching and record creationbecomes increasingly fine. Also, as Federalagency communication via electronic mail andother electronic vehicles intensifies, govern-ment records may have the potential to become“buried” within computer systems.

The intellectual debate that needs resolutionis as follows: in an electronic age, is creatinga program to retrieve a document part of thesearching process, analogous to a manualsearch, or should it be considered creation ofa new record (not required for governmentalpurposes), which, the case law has determined,is not required under FOIA? Press groups andvarious public interest and public data usergroups tend to hold the view that creating aprogram is analogous to the searching proc-ess, while agencies may respond that creatinga program is no different from creating a newdocument.

The arguments turn on how records are de-fined. If an agency maintains that FOIA per-tains only to “records in being, ” then any kindof manipulation used to extract data from asystem could technically serve as a rationaleto withhold information. If some degree ofmanipulation is required to make a computerrecord comprehensible or available to the pub-lic, then perhaps the “record in being” defini-tion should be avoided. On the other hand, insome cases, distinctions must be drawn be-tween making records available and analyzingor further manipulating data, as FOIA doesnot compel agencies to assume analytical re-search functions. Furthermore, FOIA appliesonly to records created for government pur-poses, and the manipulation of informationmay be perceived to be equivalent to the crea-tion of records that are not for government use.

Another gray area, which has become in-creasingly apparent in the context of onlineinformation, is the determination of what con-stitutes a “reasonable effort” on the part ofthe government in searching for records re-sponsive to a FOIA request. The legislativehistory of the FOIA indicates that a descrip-tion of a requested record is sufficient if it ena-bles “a professional agency employee familiar

with the subject area to locate the record witha reasonable amount of effort. “5° How can a‘‘reasonable effort be defined in an electronicage, when the capabilities for manipulating in-formation become increasingly efficient andcost effective? In the light of electronic devel-opments, the threshold of “reasonableness”warrants re-examination. The issue becomesapparent in the cases presented below, someof which involve requests for computersegregating and compacting of data. Accord-ing to the case law, when exemptions are in-volved, FOIA only requires agencies to dis-close that information which is “reasonablysegregable." The ability to delete personal andtrade data electronically could call for abroadening of the domain of requests that areconsidered reasonable. Congress and the courtsmay need to abandon some traditional views,and build an entirely new frame of referencefor electronic information.

Federal appellate and district courts havebegun to address the problems associated withdefining the appropriate nature and extent ofcomputer seaching under FOIA. In Long v.lRS,51 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit vacated and remanded a district courtdecision that had determined that the processof deleting personal information from a recordin order to “sanitize” tax compliance informa-tion would involve the creation of a newrecord. The appeals court determined that thematerial requested was, in fact, “reasonablysegregable” from exempted information, and,therefore did not involve the creation of a newrecord: “We do not believe, however, that themere deletion of names, addresses, and socialsecurity numbers results in the agency’s cre-ating a whole new record."52

The Long court differentiated the facts ofthe case from N.L.R.B. v. Sears:53

Requiring an agency to write an opinion onrequest is far different, however, from requir-

~~H R. Rep. No, 876, 93rd Cong., 2d sess. 6 (1974), reprintedin 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6271.

s15g6 F. 2d. 362 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 917(1980).

‘zIbid.‘:’421 U.S. 132, 161-62 (1975).

217

ing it to excise a name or social security num-ber from an existing record. . . . [T]he editingrequired here is not considered an unreasona-ble burden to place on an agency.54

The appeals court in Long disagreed with thedistrict court’s holding that deletion of iden-tifying information would be prohibitively ex-pensive; the IRS had estimated an editing costof $160,000. The court explored “. . . whetherthe cost and inconvenience to the agency at-tributable to the editing process can be thesole basis for determining that material is notreasonably segregable.” The court cited thelegislative history of the 1974 amendments toFOIA dealing with fees to argue that agenciesshould bear the costs of deletions. The legisla-tive history contains a statement indicatingthat “fees should not be used for the purposeof discouraging requests for information or asobstacles to disclosure of requested informa-tion. ‘-’-’ The amendments provided that agen-cies could only charge for costs of search andduplication. The court further cited a Depart-ment of the Treasury regulation that statedthat “under no circumstances will a fee becharged for . . . deleting exempt matter . . .”56

In Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Agency,”the D.C. Circuit Court came to a different con-clusion regarding the limits of reasonablenessin segregating disclosable data under FOIA.In this case, the requester had asked the DrugEnforcement Agency to “collapse” or “com-pact” data electronically. Data compaction or“disclosure avoidance techniques” are used toremove sensitive information from statisticalmaterials and involve the expression of specif-ic information in more general terms. Com-puters have facilitated these types of datamanipulations.

The Yeager court determined that agencieswere not required under FOIA to use disclo-sure avoidance techniques in fulfilling theirduties to release “reasonably segregable, ” non-

exempt portions of records. The test used todetermine the breadth of requestable functionswas whether the search was “functionally anal-ogous’ to a manual search. The Senate reporton the 1974 amendments, in the sole referenceto computer-stored records, maintained that,“in computerized form, the term ‘search’ wouldinclude services ‘functionally analogous’ tosearches for records maintained in conven-tional form.”58 The court held that: “al-though it is clear that Congress was aware ofproblems that could arise in the applicationof the FOIA to computerized records, the Actitself makes no distinction between recordsmaintained in manual and computer storagesystems. ” The judge cited holdings in NationalLabor Relations Board,59 Forsham, 60 andKissinger 61 on record creation, and concludedthat:

It is well settled that an agency is not re-quired by FOIA to create a document thatdoes not exist in order to satisfy a request. Arequester is entitled only to records that anagency has, in fact, chosen to create and re-tain. Thus, although an agency is entitled topossess a record, it need not obtain or regainpossession of a record in order to satisfy aFOIA request . . . Agencies are not, however,required to commit to paper information thatdoes not exist in some form as an agency “rec-ord. Thus, they need not write an opinion oradd explanatory material to a document.62

The Yeager court determined that new ca-pabilities of computers should not result in theexpansion of duties imposed on agencies: “TheFOIA does not contemplate imposing a greatersegregation duty upon agencies that chooseto store records in computer than upon agen-cies that employ manual retrieval systems. ”The court concluded that Congress did not re-quire any restructuring of the substantive con-tent of records, feasibility and full disclosurenot withstanding:

“’596 F. 2d 362 (9th Cir. 1979).““S. Rep. No. 1200, 93rd Cong. 2d. sess. ( 1974).-’”31 C.F. R. sec. 1.6{a)l 1 ) ( 1977).57678 F. 2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

‘“S. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong. 2d. sess. (1974).‘)’421 U.S. 132, at 161-162 (1975).‘0445 U.S. 169, at 186 (1980).“445 U.S. 136, at 152 (1980).‘)’678 F 2d at 315 (1982).

218

The interpretation suggested by (petitioner)Yeager may be desirable in terms of full dis-closure policy and it may be feasible in termsof computer technology; these factors notwith-standing, however, we are not persuaded thatCongress intended any manipulation or re-structuring of the substantive content of a rec-ord when it commanded agencies to “delete”exempt information.63

Although Yeager rejects segregation dutiesin this case, it pays lip service to the potentialof increased disclosure offered by computers:

Our treatment of the use of disclosure-avoid-ance techniques should not be viewed as dis-approval of the use of such techniques by agen-cies. We hold only that the FOIA does notmandate their use in determining whether in-formation is “reasonably segregable.” TheFOIA does not prohibit an agency from releas-ing information that falls within any of thedelineated exemptions. It only provides theagency the option of withholding the docu-ments. . . . Agencies that store information incomputerized retrieval systems have moreflexibility in voluntarily releasing informationand should be encourage(d) . . . to process re-quests for computerized information even ifdoing so involves performing services whichthe agencies are not required to provide . . .(emphasis added) 64

That searches for computer records shouldinvolve activities which are “functionally anal-ogous” to manual searches is an important con-cept, one which continues to serve as a corner-stone of debates about the extent of computersearching appropriate to FOIA. The term hasbeen used to support as well as to deny re-quests for computer searches. However, defin-ing when a computer search is “functionallyanalogous” to a manual search may be a sub-jective enterprise; Congress may need to ex-amine the appropriateness of using tests whichare based on analogies to paper records to de-fine the limits of computer searches.

In a case recently settled in the U.S. Dis-trict Court for the District of Columbia, Pub-lic Citizen v. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, 65a public interest group

challenged the comparison of computer pro-gramming to new record creation. The caseinvolved an attempt by Public Citizen to con-duct a survey of OSHA’s enforcement of pol-icies of employee notification about workplacehazards. Public Citizen first approached a re-gional office which claimed that a search of pa-per records would be unduly burdensome, andsuggested that the enforcement informationwas currently available on a company-by-company basis in OSHA’s computerized “In-tegrated Data Management System” in its Of-fice of Management Data Systems. When Pub-lic Citizen offered its list of companies to thatoffice, OSHA maintained that, although thecompanies were in its database, computerreprogramming would be required to satisfythe request. As new programming would con-stitute the creation of a new record, the requestdid not fall under FOIA, and Public Citizentherefore would not be entitled to a fee waiver.

Public Citizen’s lawsuit challenged this con-tention, claiming that the retrieval procedureswere analogous to searching, not record crea-tion. According to Public Citizen, OSHA’sassessment of the full costs of computer timewould terminate Public Citizen’s inquiry. Thepublic interest group also pointed out thatOSHA had supplied similar computer print-outs in the past to requesters free of charge.

Once the suit was initiated, OSHA claimedthat it had increased its computer capabilitiesto the extent that the appropriate technologywas available to conduct the search withoutadditional programming. The case was settledwhen the agency agreed to produce the infor-mation and grant a FOIA fee waiver to thepublic interest group.

Public Citizen illustrates a problem thatrecurs in legal questions involving new tech-nologies-a lack of technological literacyamong lawyers, judges and litigants. In thecase of FOIA, it may be difficult or impossi-ble for non-agency personnel to know whethertechnological explanations are being used

6]Ibid.“’lS. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong., 2d sess. 12 (1974). “Civil Action No. 86-07-05 (705 D.C. District Court).

219

honestly or arbitrarily to circumvent informa-tion disclosure. This issue is connected to thatof determining costs for searches. If requesterscannot know what types of operations are gen-uinely required to fulfill requests, they havelittle way of knowing whether assessed costsare accurate.

In a recent decision by the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,Clarke v. Treasury,66 the plaintiff soughtcompiled information from the bond recordsof certain “Flower Bond” holders. The courtdetermined here that anew computer programwould need to be created to extract the in-formation requested. The court drew uponForsham67 and Kissinger68 to hold that: “whilean agency maybe required to produce recordsthat do exist, it is not required to make them, ”and cited the Department of the Treasury’sregulation that provided that: “[t]here is norequirement that records be created or dataprocessed in a format other than that requiredfor governmental purposes in order to complywith a request for records."69

In a case decided by the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia, Kele v. U.S. Pa-role Commission,70 the petitioner requestedstatistical information on convicted murderersreceiving early parole. The Commission main-tained that the information could not be re-trieved without new programming and deniedthe petitioner’s request. Though the petitioner,Kele, insisted that retrieval would involvenothing more than the punching of a few keyson a keyboard, the Department of Justice ar-gued on behalf of the Commission, holdingthat:

. . . to go beyond an agency’s own existing ca-pabilities to extract data in defining computer-ized ‘records’ would constitute a wholesaledeparture from both existing law and the pur-

“)Civil Action No. 84-1873 (P;.il. Pa. 1986).‘T445 U.S. 186 (1980).“’445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980).‘)s31 C.F. R. sec. 1.5(a) (1984).“)Civil Action No. 85-4058 {D.C. District Court, 1986).

poses of the FOIA, to say nothing of the prac-tical ramifications for the government.71

In denying Kele’s request, the court upheldthe Justice Department’s view that:

. . . to hold otherwise by requiring agencies towrite computer programs not needed for car-rying out agency functions in response toFOIA requests would transform the govern-ment into a giant computer research firm cap-tive to the whims of individual requesters ata great public expense.72

A recent decision by the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Hearings and Appeals(OHA) may help change the tenor of future de-bate.” The Energy Department determinedthat reprogramming of computers, in somecases, should be considered appropriate andnecessary to the FOIA search process.

The case concerned a request by the NationalSecurity Archive (NSA) for a listing of unclas-sified “limited access documents’ available toauthorized requesters from the DOE Officeof Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI).Library personnel at OSTI responded that thedata existed in a database, but that FOIA didnot require OSTI to compile the list, as pro-duction of a list from the database would con-stitute new programming.

The NSA appealed OSTI determination tothe DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals(OHA). In conferring with OSTI, OHA foundthat if a “profile’ of the requesting party wereentered into the computer, the list of reportsavailable to that party could be retrieved. OHAgranted NSA’s appeal” and directed OSTI tocontact the NSA to clarify the scope of its re-quest and to inform the NSA of the structureand contents of its database. According toDOE regulations, if the agency holds that arequest does not reasonably describe therecords sought, agency personnel are required

‘] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support ofdefendant’s motion to dismiss, p. 18.

“Ibid., p. 19.; ‘Opinion of Record, Decision and Order, Office of Hearings

and Appeals, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Case No. KFA-0158 (June1988).

“Decision and Order, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0146 (Dec. 18, 1987).

220

to confer with the requester in an effort to re-state the request in a manner that would fa-cilitate compliance.75 In addition, OSTI wasthen directed to search its database to providethe list of documents sought by the NSA. TheOHA stated in its decision that programmingcould be considered an appropriate part of asearch for FOIA records: “[T]he mere retrievalof information already existing in a database,even if a computer must be programmed to se-lect specified types of data, does not consti-tute creation of a new record.”76

Shortly thereafter, OSTI filed a Motion forClarification of OHA’s decision, maintainingthat OHA’s statement was overboard and in-consistent with FOIA requirements. In its re-sponse, OHA held that, contrary to OSTI’scontention, providing a list of documents de-rived from OSTI database would not consti-tute the creation of a new record. Accordingto OHA, agencies may need to manipulatetheir software to perform FOIA searches, evenif those searches are dissimilar from searchesnormally conducted by agencies for their ownpurposes:

We believe, however, that to the extent thatOSTI maintains records in a database and al-ready has software that is capable of search-ing the database, the FOIA requires OSTI touse that software to search the database forthe requested records. This is true even if thetype of search that must be performed is differ-ent from the type normally performed byOSTI. A search of this nature is not, in sub-stance, significantly different from a searchof a file cabinet for paper records that are re-sponsive to a request. If the FOIA requiredanything less it would allow agencies to con-ceal information from public scrutiny by plac-ing it in computerized form. This would be in-consistent with the FOIA policy of the fullestpossible disclosure.77

The OHA specified that there should be limi-tations upon the work that agencies must un-dertake under FOIA, as:

7’10 C.F.R. 1004.4 (C)(2).“Op. cit.7’Decision and Order, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0158 (May 26, 1988).

. . . the FOIA does not require agencies to an-swer questions, generate explanatory materi-al, compile statistical data, or provide anyother information that is not already con-tained in agency records . . . There is also nodoubt that agencies are not required to per-form calculations, manipulate data, or restruc-ture records in any way pursuant to a FOIArequest, since this would constitute the crea-tion of a new record.78

However, short of the above exceptions, theOHA held that many types of computerizedsearches should be considered analogous tothose performed by hand:

While the process may be different, manycomputer searches are in substance essentiallythe same as manual searches and involve com-parable methods and skills. For example, tosearch paper records a methodology must bedeveloped and the relevant files or file drawersmanually searched for the requested informa-tion. Similar methodologies must be developedand used when a computer is instructed to per-form the search. A computer search may beelectronic in nature, but it is not necessarilyany different in essence. It merely uses differ-ent tools—the computer and its software—toconduct the search.79

The OHA refuted the court’s holding inClarke v. Treasury,80 where the agency wasnot required to undertake programming to pro-vide a simple listing to the requester:

Under these circumstances, we do not be-lieve that this single district court opinion canbe interpreted to mean that agencies can neverbe required to perform any reprogramming inorder to comply with a FOIA request.81

The OHA did not attempt to define the ex-tent to which agencies must reprogram theircomputers in order to respond to FOIA re-quests, and maintained that it will addressthis issue in the future on a case-by-casebasis:82

The more difficult issue is the extent towhich agencies must search a database in ord-

7MIbid.‘qIbid.‘°Civil Action No. 84-1873 (E. D. Pa. 1986).‘]U.S. Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0158, op. cit.82Ibid.

221.

er to select those records within the databasethat are requested pursuant to the FOIA. Onthis issue, no precise answer can be formulat-ed in the abstract. As noted above, this is anunsettled area of the law and there are few ju-dicial determinations to guide us. Furthermore,an agency’s obligation to search its databasemay depend upon the circumstances presented,including how the database is structured, thecapabilities of the agency’s computer systemand personnel, and the specific information re-quested.”{ emphasis added)”

Determining the Format ofInformation Delivered

Although both the case law and the FOIAfee guidelines have established that computerstored information is subject to FOIA, re-questers are not guaranteed access to this in-formation in formats other than paper. Accord-ing to a limited body of case law, once thedetermination has been made that a FOIA re-quest for computer-stored information is rea-sonable, an agency is not legally bound to of-fer the information in any specified format. Ifa requester does not specify format, the agencywill generally provide the information in theleast expensive form possible, or in the formmost compatible with the agency’s current in-formation delivery modes. If the requester doesspecify format, agencies may accommodate therequest, if costs are not unreasonable. Other-wise, the requester will be denied the format,or offered the option of obtaining the specifiedformat at a higher price.

A 1984 decision by the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia, Dismukes v. De-partment of the Interior,84 addressed the is-sue of the equivalency of alternative formats.The plaintiff requested a computer tape list-ing of participants in the Bureau of LandManagement’s California oil and gas leasinglotteries, in “nine track, 1,600 b.p.i., DOS orunlabeled, IBM compatible formats, with filedumps and file layouts. ” The Department ofthe Interior responded that the informationwas only available on microfiche. The court

held that the agency had no obligation underlaw to satisfy the request on computer tape,and could determine the form in which it wouldmake its records available, providing it had areasonable argument for not presenting the in-formation in the format requested:

An agency has no obligation under the FOIAto accommodate a particular requester’s pref-erence regarding the format of requested in-formation and, according to FOIA, the agencyneed only provide responsive, nonexempt in-formation in a “reasonably accessible form."85

Although, in this case, computer tape offeredthe least expensive means of access, the agencysystem was configured to deliver this type ofinformation on microfiche.

The issue in Dismukes was whether the tapeand microfiche were equivalent media foragency records, such that release of the latterwould satisfy a request for the former. To sup-port the decision, the court used the rationalethat FOIA applied to information in the ab-stract rather than to tangible agency records.While this is an argument that recurs through-out FOIA case law, it was used here to limitthe specificity of formats, rather than to ar-gue for fuller disclosure.

The Dismukes court acknowledged the Su-preme Court holding in FBI v. Abramson, 86

also citing a 1982 case, Center for NationalSecurity Studies v. CIA,87 where the court re-jected the plaintiff “literal, physical approachto the definition of agency record. ” The courtdetermined that, if the plaintiff were tostrengthen his case, he would need to provethat the decision to release the information onmicrofiche would diminish his access to the in-formation he sought. The court did allow that,in some cases, formats would not be equiva-lent, as in the case of audiotapes, where writ-ten transcripts would not be able to providethe “nuances of inflection which give wordsadded meaning beyond that reproducible onpaper.” In the case presented, however, thecourt determined that: “neither plaintiff norany document in the record suggests that the

‘ ‘Ibid‘%0,3 F. Supp. 760 (D.D.C. 1984).

‘ ‘Ibid.“’456 U.S. at 615 (1982).‘;577 F. Supp. 584, 589-590 (D.C. District Court, 1984).

222

quantum of information contained in the mi-crofiche varies in any way from that recordedon the computer tape."88

NASA has recently appealed a decision bythe U.S. District Court for the District of Co-lumbia, in which information contained in au-diotapes was determined to convey nuancesthat made them more valuable than the writ-ten transcripts. New York Times v. NASA 89

concerns a New York Times reporter’s FOIArequest to obtain cockpit voice recordings fromthe space shuttle, Challenger, along with tran-

“’603 F. Supp. 760 (D.C. District Court, 1984).“yCivil Action No. 86-02860 (D.C. District Court, 1986),

scripts and digital information. The trial judgeordered disclosure of the tapes. NASA ap-pealed on the grounds that the tapes con-stituted personal proprietary information (sim-ilar to personnel and medical files), and thatrelease of the tapes could create undue suffer-ing for the families of the astronauts. Thereporter claimed that, unlike transcripts, thetape recordings conveyed voice inflections andreproduced shuttle background noises thatcould serve as indicators of technical problems,possibly enhancing future efforts to improvesafety. A three-person Circuit Court panel re-cently affirmed the lower court’s decision, andthe case awaits a potential appeal by NASAto the full court.

EXPANDING THE LEGAL FRONTIERS: PUBLIC ACCESS TOSOFTWARE AND ONLINE DATABASES

Software

The status of computer software (includingindexes, directories, and operating programsand codes) under FOIA is uncertain, and fewagencies mention software in their regulations.Agency practice is inconsistent, varying withthe function of the software, its commercialpotential, and general agency attitudes towardopenness. No legal cases clearly address theissue of what classes of software should con-stitute agency records. Some agencies havesuggested that software is a tool used tomanipulate information rather than a record,while others relinquish software products whenrequests are perceived to be reasonable. Thisissue is problematic as some sort of code maybe necessary for even the most basic functions,such as producing a printed document fromthe magnetic media on which the informationis stored. It may be difficult or impossible forrequesters to know what types of computeroperations are involved in the agency’s re-trieval process, and whether their rights un-der FOIA are being arbitrarily denied for tech-nical or other reasons.

The issue of whether or not codes and otherinformation needed to extract computerized

data are agency records under FOIA wasraised by the district court in Yeager,90 andwas not resolved on appeal. Conceivably, anagency might deny access to computer codesunder FOIA Exemption 2, which covers inter-nal personnel matters and has been construedto absolve the agency from any obligation toproduce “trivial” internal information. The ap-peals court in Yeager concurred with the hold-ing of the lower court on the subject of codes:“The district court found that if Yeager hadmagnetic tapes of computer records, then thecodes necessary to read and use the tapes wouldbecome more than intra-agency records.”91

A more liberal view emerged in a 1982 deci-sion by a Florida appellate court, where com-puter codes were compared to instructions ac-companying a written document. In Seigle v.Barry,92 the court stated:

The information in a computer is analogousto information recorded in a code. Where apublic record is maintained in such a mannerthat it can only be interpreted by the use of

90 678 F.2d at 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982).9’ Ibid.W422 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4 D.C.A. 1982).

223

a code, then the code book must be furnishedto the applicant.93

While pre-existing data can be demanded un-der FOIA, further analysis of data cannot.However, the distinction between record pro-duction and data analysis may become blurredin cases involving computer records. If a rec-ord is incomprehensible to anyone but the oper-ator of an in-house system, some form of anal-ysis may be required. Also, if a databaseincludes software combined with public infor-mation, and the two are not segregable, thestatus of the software under FOIA can be ar-gued. Conceivably, one fraction of the data-base could constitute nonreleasable agency in-formation, while the rest of the unit qualifiedas a “record” by FOIA standards.

While most agencies have failed to mentionsoftware explicitly in their FOIA regulations,the Department of Defense (DoD) is an excep-tion. DoD made several explicit references tosoftware in its recent regulations pertainingto fees and fee waivers, in compliance with theFOIA Reform Act of 1986.94 In specifyingthose materials which should not constituterecords under FOIA, the Department includedin its definition of commercially exploitable re-sources: “Computer software, if not createdor used as primary sources of informationabout organizations, policies, functions, deci-sions, or procedures of a DoD component. ”DoD did, however, add that this definitionshould not include the “underlying data whichis processed and produced by such softwareand which may in some instances be storedwith the software. ” (emphasis added)95

Perhaps even more significant is DoD’s refer-ence to information stored inside machines.According to the regulations, informationstored within a computer “for which there isno existing computer program or printout”(emphasis added)” would not be subject to aFOIA request. When in-house paperwork re-

“Ibid.“’P.I,. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-49.““32 C.F. R. Part 286, 1987 (Fed. Reg. vol. 52, No. 132, July

10, 1987).96 Ibid.

duction efforts and the efficacy of computercommunications have led to increased use ofelectronic mail and other electronic systemsto relay agency information, this limited defi-nition of “records” could be problematic. Evenwhen information is targeted for public con-sumption, the growing adoption of “printingon demand” practices should stimulate closeexamination of relevant regulations.

Online Databases

Given the trend toward cost recovery forFederal agency information products, it seemslikely that user fees will continue to help sup-port Federal online database delivery systems.If FOIA requests for copies of certain data-bases are denied, and online access is pricedbeyond the means of particular requesters, theFederal Government can be accused of restrict-ing public access to its electronic information.On the other hand, if private vendors or othermembers of the public are able to obtain co-pies of Federal databases at nominal prices un-der FOIA, the ability of these database serv-ices to operate in a self-sustaining fashion couldbe eroded.

The leading case addressing a FOIA requestfor machine-readable copies of a Federal data-base is SDC Development Corp. v. Mathews,a 1976 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit.97 The case concerned an at-tempt by a private firm to use FOIA to obtaincopies of the extensive MEDLARS biblio-graphic health database from the National Li-brary of Medicine (NLM). The MEDLARStapes were available for sale on a subscriptionbasis through the National Technical Informa-tion Service (NTIS) for $50,000, with an esti-mated additional cost of $50,000 for annualdata updating. The firm maintained that thedatabase should be relinquished for the costof search and duplication, presumably muchless than the NTIS sales price.

The court held that the library reference ma-terials were not public records, and need notbe relinquished under FOIA. Although this

‘7542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

224

case is sometimes cited by agencies to denythe analogy between paper records and com-puterized records, the fact that NLM’s refer-ence materials were stored in a computer data-bank was inconsequential to the decision. Thecourt used the rationale that applying FOIAhere would constitute a conflict between twostatutes, in this case FOIA and the NationalLibrary of Medicine Act.98 “When two stat-utes are capable of coexistence, it is the dutyof courts, absent a clearly expressed Congres-sional intention to the contrary, to regard eachas effective. “99 The National Library of Medi-cine Act, in which Congress established theLibrary in 1956, authorized the Secretary ofHealth, Education, and Welfare to charge thepublic for using services and materials.100 Thecourt also footnoted the Technical InformationAct101 which directed the Secretary of Com-merce to maintain a clearinghouse for scien-tific and technical information in which “to thefullest extent feasible, each of the services andfunctions provided shall be self-sustaining orself-liquidating." 102

The court distinguished here between infor-mation per se and information deliverysystems:

Congress specifically mandated the agencyto prepare this system and hold it as stock intrade for sale to the public. As such the sys-tem constitutes a highly valuable commodity.Requiring the agency to make its delivery sys-tem available to the appellants at nominalcharge would not enhance the informationgathering and dissemination function of theagency, but rather would hamper it substan-tially. Contractual relationships with variousorganizations, designed to increase the agency’sability to acquire and catalog medical infor-mation, would be destroyed if the tapes couldbe obtained essentially for free , . . The agencyis seeking to protect not its information, butrather its system for delivering that infor-mation. 103

The Mathews court determined that theMEDLARS material did not constitute anagency record, as it:

. . . does not directly reflect the structure, oper-ation, or decision-making functions of theagency, and where, as here, the materials arereadily disseminated to the public by theagency, the danger of agency secrecy whichCongress sought to alleviate is not a consid-eration. 104

SDC v. Mathews is particularly interestingwhen observed in the context of the debate overthe roles of the public or private sectors in thedelivery of public information services. In acommittee report on government informationdissemination prepared by the House Commit-tee on Government Operations, the Mathewscourt was accused of having “misunderstoodthe statutory role of NLM, misread the FOIA,and failed to consider the Copyright Act andthe significance of the policy against restric-tions on dissemination of government infor-mation. 105 The decision works both in favorof and against private vendors. On the onehand, the decision supports NLM’s chargingof fees and its exclusive agreements with pri-vate contractors in order to further the agency’spublic information objectives. On the otherhand, to protect the agency’s information dis-semination mission, the decision preventsother private database vendors from usingFOIA as an inexpensive means to obtain mar-ketable electronic data.

A case currently pending in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia, Interna-tional Computaprint Corp. v. U.S. Departmentof Commerce106 raises issues addressed inDismukes107 as well as SDC v. Mathews.108

Computaprint, a private database vendor, re-quested machine-readable copies of the Pat-ent Office’s (PTO) computerized trademarkdatabase. PTO denied the request on twogrounds. First, because the data was available

‘s42 U.S. C. 276.“542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).1o042 us-c. 276 (c)(21.

“)’15 U.S.C. sec. 1151-1157.‘“’542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).‘(’’{603 F.2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

‘[’’Ibid.103Electrom”c Collection and Dissemination of Information buy

Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview. House Rep. 99-560, 99thCong. 2d sess. 1986, p. 35.

“)’Civil Action No. 87-1848 D.C. (District Court, 1987).“’7603 F. SUpp. 760 (D.D.C. 1984).*uh542 F. 2d. at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

225

through alternate means, PTO claimed thatit had no obligation to provide machine-readabletapes. Trademark data could be obtained on-line in PTO’s public reading room, as well ason microfiche. Using the line of reasoning inDismukes, the agency maintained that the in-formation content of a record is not affectedby its format. Second, PTO responded that theeconomic value of the tapes excluded themfrom FOIA.

Computaprint maintains that the PatentOffice’s alternative means of securing trade-mark information are inadequate. Accordingto Computaprint, the paper records in PTO’sreference library are not as accurate as thecomputerized records—in fact, the agency’soriginal rationale for computerization was theupgrading of its information. During an exper-imental effort to use the heavily-traffickedcomputer terminals in the public referencerooms, Computaprint personnel were asked toleave the terminals at one-hour intervals. Com-putaprint has estimated in its briefs that se-curing the information through the publicreference rooms would take about 8 years.According to Computaprint, the case is notanalogous to SDC v. Mathews, as there areno provisions in PTO authorizing legislationto make the trademark database self-sustaining.

Complicating the case, a reverse-FOIA ac-tion was filed by Thomson and Thomson, thecontractor that computerized PTO’s files.109

In a special agreement with PTO, Thomsonand Thomson currently receives a copy of thedatabase for commercial use. Thomson andThomson claims that the records in questionrepresent a “a computer-readable trademarkdatabase and search system developed at sub-stantial cost, ’’n” and that releasing some ofthe information to Computaprint, even on mi-crofiche, could reveal proprietary informationof submitters. According to Thomson andThomson, release of machine-readable tapesto Computaprint at nominal costs under FOIAwould relieve Computaprint from the capitalcosts of developing its own database, givingComputaprint an unfair competitive advan-tage over Thomson and Thomson in the trade-mark search business. Computaprint has re-sponded that allowing Thomson and Thomsonto use the database while restricting other bulktransfers of data from PTO’s system is con-trary to the mandates of FOIA.

1’~9Thomson and Thomson v. International ComputaprintCorp., Civil Action No. 88-0839 (D.C. District Court, 1988).

‘‘“Ibid.

FEE ASSESSMENT AND FEE WAIVERS: CHARGED ISSUES INAN AGE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

The growth in computerized agency recordsand the associated escalation in costs ofrecords have heightened public sensitivity tothe new Federal standards for fee assessmentand fee waivers that were specified in the FOIAReform Act of 1986.111 The act gave the Of-fice of Management and Budget the author-ity to establish fee guidelines, which wereissued in 1987 as the Uniform Freedom of In-formation Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines.112

Fees that are assessable under FOIA fall intothree categories: 1) review costs—costs asso-

—.‘‘‘P.L. 99-570 ( 100 Stat. 3207-44).“’P.L. 99-570 (Fed. Reg. \’ol. 52, No. 59, 1987).

ciated with the determination of whether therequested documents can be disclosed), 2)search costs—costs associated with retrievingdisclosable documents, and 3) reproductioncosts.

Under the FOIA amendments of 1974, feeswere reduced or waived when the informationrequested was determined to ‘benefit the gen-eral public." 113 “Benefitting the public” wassubsequently construed by agencies to meanthat public dissemination was expected. Thenew standard for applying general fee waivershas been more specifically defined, from “benefit-

‘ ‘‘P.L. 93-502,

226

ting the public” to “significantly increasingthe understanding of government activities”(emphasis added).’”

Where there were no distinctions betweenrequesters in the 1974 amendments, the pro-visions of the FOIA Reform Act specify threecategories of requesters that are uncondition-ally entitled to preferential fee treatment. Thenews media, educational institutions, and non-commercial scientific institutions are automat-ically excluded from all but duplication costs.Commercial requesters may be assessed re-view, search, and duplication costs, while otherrequesters who do not fall into one of the abovefour categories may be assessed both searchand duplication costs. Outside this schedule,all requesters are entitled to apply for generalfee waivers.

Since the 1986 amendments have guaranteedreduced fees for specified groups, they are po-tentially more generous than the amendmentsof 1974. However, the new amendments havebeen highly criticized for their omission of cer-tain groups from the favored categories, par-ticularly libraries and public interest groups.Also, the definition of the specified categorieseligible for favorable fee treatment has gen-erated controversy, as the OMB guidelinestake a more restrictive view than those put for-ward by several congressional sponsors of theamendments.

“’P.1.. 99-570 (Fed. Reg. VO1. 52, No. 59, 1987).

Under the new FOIA fee guidelines, insearches for paper records, noncommercial re-questers may not be charged for the first 2hours of search time or the first 100 pages ofinformation delivered. OMB has determined,however, that 2 hours of computer search timeis not analogous to 2 hours of manual searchtime. Since most computer searches are accom-plished in seconds and fractions of seconds,according to OMB, an interpretation of thestatutory free search time as an entitlementto require an agency to operate a computer for2 hours would constitute an unreasonable dis-ruption of an agency’s normal automated dataprocessing (ADP) activities. Thus, OMB hasdeveloped a formula based on a literal anal-ogy to a manual search, whereby the computersearcher is equated to as a clerical worker un-dertaking a manual search. The requestor is,therefore, entitled to receive an amount of com-puter processing unit (CPU) operating timeequivalent to the cost of 2 hours of computeroperator salary. In order to reduce adminis-trative steps required to calculate costs on anindividual basis, agencies may establish agen-cywide average operator/programmer salariesand average CPU operating costs. Accordingto OMB, 100 pages of free information shouldnot be applied directly to microfiche, but tothe “microfiche equivalent” of 100 pages. Sim-ilarly, audiotape distribution should be analo-gous to 100 pages of paper copies.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND THE NEED FOR AMENDING FOIAAs is evident in the courts, new communi- [W]e decline Yeager’s invitation to “view the

cation and information technologies are rais- availability of disclosure avoidance techniquesing essential questions about the fundamen- as simply defining with more clarity the man-tal nature of records and the parameters of ner in which microdata information might besearches for records. In several FOIA cases, released. ” This invitation should be extendedthe courts have expressed a need for Congress to Congress rather than to this court.115

to clarify the numerous gray areas left openby the statute in its application to the new gen-eration of computerized information. TheYeager court is one such example: “’678 F.2d at 315 (D.C. Cir.1982).

—. --

. .

The appeals court in Yeager mirrored the viewsof the district court regarding congressionalspecificity y:

[A]s agencies begin keeping more of theirrecords in computerized form, the need to con-tour the provisions of FOIA to the computerwill become increasingly necessary and moredramatic. 116

At present, decisions about fundamentalprinciples are left to agency discretion, withfurther interpretation, when litigated, by thecourts. Consequently, these decisions may besubject to the biases of agency personnel, orbe made by lawyers and judges whose under-standing of new technologies may be limited.Some of the problems raised by new technol-ogies may be clarified by the facts of individ-ual cases and can be approached on a case-by-case basis. But many of the growing ambigui-ties need to be addressed through statutoryamendment. As technology is continuallyevolving, setting objective criteria for defin-ing records and search efforts will be a diffi-cult task. Nevertheless, working towardgreater specificity could bean important firststep in ensuring an adequate level of publicaccess to electronic information.

In developing and considering possibleamendments to FOIA, it is important to un-derstand the nature of emerging computer-related problems. It is also important to con-sider new developments in computer and data-base technology that could alleviate some ofthese problems in the future. A typology ofthe issues is presented below:

● Electronic information technologies are ob-scuring the boundary between record andnonrecord material. As electronic data-bases become more sophisticated, they re-semble information “pools” rather thandiscrete records. For example, relationaldatabase technology allows data elementsfrom different pathways or "fields" to beconnected to one another in nonlinear com-

] lbMemorandum order at 6; APP at 44

227

binations. The parallels to paper recordsare becoming more remote.Computers are facilitating faster and morecomplex searches, encouraging a broaderdefinition of a “reasonable” search. Givencomputer capabilities for expeditedsearching, segregating, and consolidatingof data, the definition of a “reasonable”search may need to be broadened.Electronic FOIA requests can be incompat-ible with the ways agencies collect andorganize information. Although this prob-lem also applies to FOIA requests for pa-per documents, computerized informationmanagement systems are aggravating theissue as they are relatively inflexible, withlimited capacity to respond to inquiriesin an ad hoc fashion. Evolving technol-ogies such as relational databases andhypertext could provide some solutionsin the future.Computer searching raises new staffing andbudgetary problems, as well as opportuni-ties for Federal agencies. Most agencieshave no computer programmers assignedto FOIA implementation. Requests forcomputerized records are generally givento personnel hired to operate internal in-formation management systems. Agencyuse of electronic technologies that couldallow clerical and administrative staff toretrieve computerized information couldultimately enhance public access to com-puter records. These technologies includepreprogr ammed utility software, frontendsystems with natural query languages, ex-pert systems, and optical disks.Federal agencies are using informationproducts whose status is unclear underFOIA. The status of computer programs(including computerized indexes, codes,and directories) is unclear, as is that of in-tegrated software and database packages.Electronic mail, quickly becoming a ma-jor mode of interdepartmental communi-cation, presents additional questions forFOIA.Paper printouts of electronic information

228

may not satisfy public access needs. Al-though the case law has established thatcomputerized information is subject toFOIA, agencies are not required to deliverthe information in machine-readable form.The option of encouraging or requiringagencies to provide alternative electronicformats–such as magnetic tape, floppydisk, optical disk, and online access–warrants consideration.

Electronic Information TechnologiesAre Obscuring the Boundary Between

Record and Nonrecord Material

At the most fundamental level, new technol-ogies are obscuring the boundary between rec-ord and nonrecord material. As informationtechnology evolves, records become more dif-ficult to conceptualize in terms of discrete, tan-gible documents. Information technology is,in a sense, detaching information from its em-bodiment. A record stored electronically maybecome a useful body of information only uponretrieval. The concept of database is replac-ing the concept of “record” per se. It thusbecomes more difficult to establish genuineparallels between paper records and recordsstored in computers.

Electronic Information Often RequiresIntervening Technologies To Become

Understandable

In court cases involving computer records,analogies from paper documents are still be-ing applied, implying a distinct boundary be-tween record and nonrecord material. Thecourts are currently basing the delineation ofthis boundary on the function of retrieval: ifinformation requires new programming for itsretrieval, it is not an agency record (or it is anentirely new record, the creation of which isnot required under FOIA). This type of func-tional definition is clearly easier to apply thanother distinctions, but it may be inappropri-ate. At present, if an electronic file cannot beprinted out with one push of a button, agen-

cies and courts may determine that it legallyneed not serve as a record under FOIA.

The current records test, based on program-ming, is inappropriate because electronic in-formation always needs some type of trans-formation to be understood. While writteninformation can be read instantaneously, noone can look at the electronic bits of data ina database and understand their meaning.These bits of data often require specialized soft-ware for reorganization into readable form. Asintervening technologies are necessary ratherthan superfluous, there is technically no suchthing as a “record in being. ”

As Electronic Databases Become MoreSophisticated, They Resemble

Information “Pools” Rather ThanDiscrete Records

As electronic database systems become moresophisticated, electronic records become moredifficult to conceptualize in terms of separa-ble, identifiable entities. As records can be gen-erated from data elements from different files,the information stored in databases may re-semble “pools” of information rather than dis-crete documents. As the database technologycontinues to evolve, the parallels to paperrecords become more oblique.

For example, relational database systems,developed in the 1970s, allow discrete dataitems to be linked to one another based onspecified underlying criteria. One record maytherefore constitute a synthesis of informationretrieved from several different files. In somecases, then, several pieces of data can or mustbe connected to make a record. The jargon inthe field of relational technology reflects thepool-like aspect of the new databases. A col-lection of data is called a “relation” insteadof a file. A record is, in effect, a series of rela-tions or collections of data rather than a sin-gle file.

This represents a significant jump from theflat file technology of the 1970s where data-bases were designed in hierarchical or network

229

fashion. In both hierarchical and network data-bases, information retrieval is linear. In theformer, one piece of information is connectedto others through a series of hierarchically-arranged channels. Access begins at the topof the hierarchy and spreads through subse-quent levels of detail. While network databasesare set up so that a single data element can“point” to other data elements, there is stilla fixed pathway for navigating through thedatabase. By contrast, in a relational database,data elements from different pathways or“fields” can be connected to one another in non-linear combinations.

As a result, some forms of new programmingor other intervening operations may be neces-sary to interpret or compile electronic records.Making analogies between paper and electronicrecords and using the function of programmingto distinguish between record and nonrecordmaterial could be detrimental to the intent ofFOIA. If genuine access to records is to bepreserved, a new focus may need to be placedon the substance, or information content, ofdatabases, rather than the operations requiredto extract or interpret them.

Computers Are Facilitating Faster andMore Complex Searches, Thereby

Encouraging a Broader Definition of a“Reasonable” Search

As mentioned earlier, the legislative historyof the FOIA indicates that a description of arequested record is sufficient if it enables aprofessional agency employee familiar with thesubject area to locate the record with a “rea-sonable amount of effort."117 At present, thedefinition of what constitutes a reasonablesearch is left to the discretion of agencies and,when litigated, the courts. As in definingrecords, the current test of reasonableness usu-ally includes whether new programming is re-quired.

‘‘;H.It. Rep. No. 876, 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 6 (1974), reprintedin 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6271.

This test may no longer be appropriate dueto technological evolution. Given computer ca-pabilities for expedited searching, segregating,and compacting of data, the realm of what con-stitutes a ‘‘reasonable search could bebroadening. In cases involving paper records,decisions in the courts as to what is reason-able have been related to the effort agenciesare required to exert on behalf of requesters.In the computer context, some courts have con-cluded that any new programming or modifi-cation of an existing program should bedeemed new record creation and, therefore, un-reasonable. According to DoD’s recent regu-lations pertaining to FOIA fees, electronic in-formation for which there is no existing printoutneed not be attainable under FOIA.118 Takento its extreme, this regulation could be inter-preted to mean that pushing a button to printa document would constitute new programming.

Thus, a subtle shift has occurred that hasdetached decisions about reasonableness fromany considerations of effort. This is incongru-ous with tradition, as a significant amount ofeffort has historically gone into FOIA search-ing for and production of paper documents, Re-trieval of paper documents may involve exten-sive tracking, communication with numerousbureaus, searching disparate files, and sub-stantial hand deletion of exempted materials.

The programming/no programming distinc-tion continues to decrease in validity as devel-oping technologies reduce the effort needed tomodify or execute new programs. In manycases, new programming to retrieve computerrecords may be less costly and/or time consum-ing than searches for paper records.

Clearly, drawing lines between reasonabledegrees of effort is a difficult task. The func-tional approach is much more clear-cut. If Con-gress is to help set new criteria, it must takeinto account the rapid rate of technological evo-lution in data processing. What is not reason-able today may be reasonable tomorrow or in

‘ ‘“32 C.F.R. Part 286, 1987 (Fed. Reg. \Fol. 52, No. 132, July10, 1987).

230

the near future. In spite of this, new criteriabased on effort or cost could ultimately bene-fit agencies as well as requesters. Clearer stand-ards could enhance public access as well as pro-tect agencies from excessive demands byattorneys seeking to prolong FOIA lawsuits.

Degrees of effort needed to execute computersearches can vary dramatically. A request maybe relatively easy to specify but difficult to run,requiring days of computer time. Another re-quest may require hours of programming time,but can be searched easily once the programis created. An illustration of computer searchesrequiring varying levels of effort is presentedbelow:

●

●

●

●

Level 1. File ABCD exists in the computer.It can be retrieved with a “print” com-mand. In other words, the data has al-ready been collected and organized in themanner desired by the requester.Level 2. File ABCD exists in the computer.Though it cannot be printed directly, itcan be retrieved from the database byusing existing retrieval programming andentering keywords. The data does not needto be modified with a new algorithm.Level 3. Someone asks for E, which canbe derived from ABCD using a new al-gorithm. Put simply, the agency main-tains the data, but it must be modified tofit the request.Level 4. The request cannot be satisfiedby information-derived from ABCD. Itmay require additional information fromFGHI or other databases. A new programmust be created. This may involve alimited amount of effort through the ap-plication of simple query language or com-mercially available software. On the otherhand, anew program could involve a com-plex query that takes days of a program-mer’s time and hours or days of computertime.

According to recent interviews with infor-mation management personnel at selectedagencies, many choose to reprogram their com-puters, or modify existing programs, on theirown accord. In some cases, this may benefit

the agencies as well as the requesters. Con-toured searches may be easier to execute thansupplying large amounts of unedited or dis-aggregate data. In other cases, programmingis motivated by the awareness that the effortundertaken would be less burdensome thanthat associated with a potential lawsuit.

An important consideration to remember isthat the effort required for a FOIA search isnot solely a function of the nature of the re-quest. Effort is also determined by the struc-ture of the database, the sophistication of in-formation storage and retrieval tools, and thecompetence of agency staff. A poorly run re-trieval system could require days to search fora straightforward record. A sophisticated sys-tem with higher-level language might be ableto retrieve the same data in minutes. Clearly,Congress cannot mandate the acquisition ofstate-of-the-art computer systems. But ifsearches are to be based on effort, and if re-questers continue to be charged for computerprogramming and operation time, measuresmust be undertaken to encourage agency effi-ciency.

Electronic FOIA Requests Can BeIncompatible With the Ways Agencies

Collect and Organize Information

One of the greatest problems encounteredin satisfying FOIA requests is that requestsare often incompatible with the ways in whichagency records are originally collected andorganized. For example, at the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA), aregulatory agency, most inspections are un-dertaken and documented by geographical re-gion, industry, accident, or type of complaint.The databases created by OSHA follow thecontours of the different inspection programswithin the agency. FOIA requests, on the otherhand, are usually directed to specific productsor companies at particular locations. Since theagency does not maintain such a database,these requests may require new programming.

While the lack of compatibility between re-quests and compiled information is a problem

that also affects requests for paper records,computer retrieval in some ways exacerbatesthe problem. Although computers can be fastand consistent, they may be less flexible thanthe manual systems they have replaced. Whilethey are proficient at processing anticipatedforms of information, they are less adept atperforming operations (such as responding toFOIA requests) that have not been preprogram-med into their software or machine language.

Certain new developments in hardware andsoftware technology —such as relational data-bases and hypertext-promise to enhance com-puter flexibility and responsiveness to unan-ticipated forms of requests. New technologieswill also increase the speed of all forms of dataprocessing. These developments will ulti-mately reduce the effort associated with re-trieval of electronic information, and thereforecould have positive consequences for FOIA,allowing for: faster searches; searches throughunorganized data; integration of data from di-verse files; and better response to ad hoc re-quests.

Technologies Could Facilitate Ad HocResponses to FOIA Requests for

Computerized Information

Relational Databases

As relational database technology increasesin sophistication, users can more easily pulltogether data from different files in an ad hocmanner. The links between different data fieldsdo not necessarily need to be preprogrammed;instead, they can be created to suit the require-ments of specific requests. Programming newlinks varies in difficulty, depending on the soft-ware. The increasing flexibility y offered by rela-tional database technology could have majorsignificance for FOIA, allowing the computerto provide information better tailored to theneeds of requesters.

Hypertext

Hypertext software, still in early phases ofcommercial development, will also allow for en-hanced ad hoc data retrieval. In theory, hyper-

231

text allows a user to design a database fromscratch. Links can be established between un-structured bits of information; hypertext doesnot impose a linear display of data. Hypertextincorporates images and sound as well as text.

Institutional Changes Could IncreaseComparability Between FOIA Requests

and Available Information

In addition to new technologies, certain in-stitutional changes could help alleviate theproblem of responding to requests that are in-compatible with the ways information is col-lected. Some options are:

Tallying frequent requests. Tallying themost common types of requests for com-puterized information could be a first stepin enhancing compatibility between dataand requests. This could lead to the de-velopment of utility programs tailored toretrieve organized data, and could influ-ence a greater awareness of public accessneeds in the data collection phase. OSHAis currently documenting its most fre-quent FOIA requests every 6 months.Public input in data collection. Pilot pro-grams could be initiated to allow citizensand public interest groups to inform agen-cies about the types of data that wouldbe most beneficial to them. Public inputwould also help determine the delivery for-mats that would be best suited to re-questers’ needs.Public input in the records-searching proc-ess. Some agency regulations require theirFOIA offices to consult with requestersto help tailor searches to requester needs.In some cases, requesters are allowed to“walk through” agency computer sys-tems. If an agency is incapable of conduct-ing a search, a requester could be shownhow to narrow the inquiry, or converselyto broaden the request to allow files to becopied without editing or selection.Standardized information delivery systems.Current, custom-built agency informationsystems rarely take public access into ac-count. Setting standards for agency hard-

232

●

ware and software could enhance compati-bility with users’ equipment.Utility programs. The creation of pre-progr ammed utility software for commonly-occurring requests could facilitate moreefficient and appropriate responses. Util-ity programs are discussed in the follow-ing section.

Computer Searching Raises NewStaffing and Budgetary Problems,

as Well as Opportunities forFederal Agencies

Many agency FOIA offices are understaffed,and to the best of OTA’s knowledge, none havecomputer programmers specifically assignedto FOIA. As a result, FOIA requests for com-puterized records are typically shunted toAutomated Data Processing (ADP) depart-ments, where they are handled by personnelhired and trained to run internal computeroperations. As FOIA fees are forwarded to theDepartment of the Treasury rather than be-ing credited to specific agencies, there are fewfinancial incentives for agencies to respond torequests for electronic records. Policy could bechanged to establish an annual congressionalappropriation for the implementation of FOIA,or to allow agencies to retain FOIA fees at leastas a partial offset against expenses. As thereare usually no computer operaters on FOIAstaffs, agencies could be required to hire atleast one full-time computer programmer toaccommodate FOIA requests involving com-puter work. In addition to policy initiatives,new technologies could help alleviate staffingproblems and reduce costs of processing cer-tain FOIA requests. Technologies that couldrelieve ADP specialists from FOIA demandscould facilitate access by clerical and admin-istrative staff, and ultimately enhance publicaccess to computerized information. Severalof these technologies are discussed below.

Technologies Could HelpNonspecialists Respond to FOIA

Requests for Computerized Information

Utility Programs

The development of commercial and custom-made utility programs could facilitate re-sponses to some types of requests, especiallymore common types of requests that could bepredicted in advance. Utility programs aregeneric software programs that can performanticipated functions. They contain a set ofretrieval operations that can be invoked with-out programming. Thus, even if an agency hadlittle interest in compiling a record for its in-ternal purposes, the record could be generatedmuch more easily than in the past.

The trend from mainframes to microcom-puters, a hallmark of the 1980s, is allowing forgreater user autonomy. In theory, clericalworkers could be trained to handle some pro-gramming functions currently executed byADP professionals. Administrative staff tradi-tionally handle FOIA requests for paperrecords; therefore, from a staffing perspective,the use of utility programs could make sometypes of computer searches more similar tosearches through paper files.

According to agency information managersinterviewed, some are already beginning totally their most common FOIA requests anddesign their own utility programs to accom-modate them, eliminating the need for new pro-gramming. Searching with utility programscan be significantly less expensive than search-ing on mainframe, tape-driven systems. As theeffort involved in satisfying certain requestsis decreasing, new classes of requests could fallinto the “reasonable” domain.

Networked PCs and Network Servers

As stand-alone PCs become linked throughlocal area networks, individuals at work sta-

233—

tions can gain increased access to large data-bases through “network servers. ” These arespecialized computers with larger storage andprocessing capacity than work stations. Thenetwork server is a shared machine that allowsindividuals at their own work stations to up-date, process, delete, and insert new recordsfrom remote locations. Networked PCs andnetwork servers could give nonspecialistsgreater access to more powerful computer oper-ations, including larger and more sophisticateddatabases. Therefore, like utility programs,they could contribute to the goal of helpingadministrative staff process FOIA requests forcomputerized information. Network serversequipped with optical disks could optimize ac-cess to large volumes of records.

Front End Software

Advances in front-end software are contrib-uting to the possibilities for nonspecialists towrite new programs, by translating compli-cated query languages into natural language.(A query is a command that tells a computerwhich fields to search and combine. At present,different databases and brands of computersrequire different query languages.) The grow-ing simplification and standardization of quer-ies could significantly reduce the amount ofeffort involved in some forms of new program-ming. In the future, better front-end technol-ogy could facilitate direct queries from homecomputers or from PC in agency public refer-ence rooms.

Expert Systems

Expert systems contain inference or decisionmaking programs that are combined with dataentered by users. Expert systems software con-tains programmed search rules that help usersdecide how to maneuver through datafiles toanswer particular questions. While expert sys-tems are limited by the logic of the experts whocreate the programs, they could help agency

personnel respond more easily and quickly topredictable FOIA requests.

Artificial Intelligence

Future artificial intelligence systems willhave more self-initiating capabilities than doexpert systems. Artificial intelligence softwarehelps users ask the questions appropriate tosolving problems. A master control programsdirects users to appropriate expert systemsthrough question-and- answer sessions under-taken in natural language. While artificial in-telligence systems are still in early develop-mental phases, it is expected that, in the future,they could eliminate the need for users toremember complex codes or commands. Userswill be able to articulate their questions fullyin natural language.

Optical Disks

Optical disks and related search and retrievalsoftware could greatly enhance records-storagecapacity and facilitate searching through un-structured information. While manual searchesfor archived paper documents can take days,weeks, or even months, searches through anequal number of full-text records on opticaldisks could technically be accomplished in se-conds or minutes.

Federal Agencies Are UsingInformation Products Whose Status is

Unclear Under FOIA

In addition to software programs and onlinedatabases, whose status under FOIA has be-gun to be debated in the courts, Federal agen-cies are embracing additional technologies thatneed to be studied in the context of FOIA. Twoexamples are presented below.

Integrated Software and Database Systems

When databases and their integrative soft-ware are combined into one system, the func-

234

tional distinction between “programs” and“records” loses its validity. As the softwareis necessary to make the database or recordcomprehensible, the program may need to besupplied along with the record.

Electronic Mail

Electronic mail is significant for FOIA inthat it allows data to be created, transmitted,processed, analyzed, archived, and disposed ofelectronically, without paper printouts. Asgovernment communications are increasinglycarried out via electronic mail and other com-puter applications, “records” may never ex-ist in tangible form or in a “narrow, physicalsense. ” Under current judicial interpretations,these forms of communication could be with-held from public view. The “record in being”concept, which continues to be used in thecourts and in agency regulations, may need tobe revisited.

The Iran-Contra case recently demonstratedthat electronic mail can provide valuable in-formation about government activities, infor-mation which the public may have a justifia-ble right to know. The National SecurityCouncil’s PROFS electronic mail system pro-vided the public with crucial information aboutthe diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Con-tras. This information was retrieved from atemporary PROFS backup file that had beencreated to protect users against electricalpower surges or other interruptions.

The question electronic mail poses for FOIAis whether messages should be treated likeagency records or like confidential personalcommunications such as telephone calls. Ifsome types of electronic mail communicationsare to become accessible under FOIA, theymust be stored, backed up, archived, and/orprinted. In cases where electronic mail mes-sages are considered analogous to telephoneconversations or personal meetings, the FOIAneed not apply. Monitoring or required archiv-ing of telephone calls could be considered sim-ilar to wiretapping.

The questions of which electronic mail com-munications require archiving for FOIA pur-

poses (as well as for records retention pur-poses), and how some messages differ fromothers under FOIA, need to be answered in or-der to develop consistent policies for electronicmail. These new policies may need to focusupon the content of the communications ratherthan the form. While most electronic mail sys-tems have “document” as well as “message”features, archiving should not be limited todocuments. Increasing numbers of importantagency actions and decisions are resulting fromelectronic mail messages. Though assessingthe import of messages and distinguishing be-tween deliberations and final orders may bedifficult, taking these steps may be necessaryto ensure appropriate public access.

Paper Printouts of ElectronicInformation May Not Satisfy Public

Access Needs

Although both the case law and the FOIAfee guidelines have established that computer-stored information is subject to FOIA, re-questers are not guaranteed access to this in-formation in formats other than paper. Thoughthe case law is extremely limited in this area,the D.C. District Court decided in Dismukesv. Department of the Interior, that “an agencyhas no obligation under FOIA to accommodatea particular requester’s preference regardingthe format of requested information, ” and thatagencies need only provide information in “rea-sonably accessible form."119 If requesters askfor tapes, disks, or direct online access, theyare not assured their choices. The decisionsgenerally rest with agency information cus-todians.

Technological change brings into questionwhether paper printouts alone are a satisfac-tory means of satisfying requests for electronicinformation. It could be argued that tapes,disks, or even online retrieval might be neces-sary to effectively use or analyze large quan-tities of raw data.

In practice, agency decisions about formatvary widely. Some agencies provide data tapes,

I lg603 F, Supp. 760 (1).C. District Court. 1984).

235

disks, and software, either to save time, lowercosts, or enhance public access. Some State andFederal agencies are beginning to offer remoteaccess to electronic records. Most Federalagencies, however, continue to satisfy theirminimum legal requirements by producing pa-per printouts of electronic information. A briefdiscussion of alternative delivery formats ispresented below.

Magnetic Tapes and Disks

Providing tapes or disks to requesters couldrelieve agencies from computer searching andprinting efforts. For requesters, tapes anddisks eliminate the need to re-input informa-tion, and facilitate analysis and synthesis ofstatistical information. As a drawback, distrib-uting tapes or disks could result in additionaltime commitments for agency personnel. Re-questers generally ask for explanations of datastructures and need help designing programsto retrieve machine-readable data. Whether ac-curate or not, some agency personnel feel thatreleasing tapes and disks would increase pos-sibilities of information manipulation and mis-representation of agency statistics and opin-ions. Other information custodians readilyrelease tapes and disks, although some includecaveats to reduce the risks of false attribution.

Optical Disks

Optical disks may provide an economicalmeans of distributing records to satellite read-ing rooms and depository libraries. Opticaldisks are simpler and less expensive to dupli-cate than large quantities of paper documents.Automated retrieval software could facilitatesearches for FOIA records on disks.

Computer Programs

Computer programs contain the instructionsthat direct machines to store, retrieve, andmanipulate data. For the purposes of FOIA,the status of programs is in a state of flux.Agency views about programs are disparate–they are sometimes considered records andsometimes tools. When deemed tools, programsare not considered subject to FOIA.

Whether programs are considered tools orrecords, some types of records may be inac-cessible without them. Agencies must learn todistinguish fairly between programs requiredto interpret records and programs that furtheranalyze or manipulate data; the former mayneed to be released and the latter subject toagency discretion. When programs incorporateinstructions that reveal agency decisionmak-ing techniques or information gathering meth-ods, they may constitute records in their ownright.

In 1980, a Florida appellate court embraceda broad definition of agency records that couldhave implications for the status of software.In Shevin v. Byron, Harless,120 the court heldthat, “a public record is anything made or re-ceived in connection with the agency’s busi-ness that is intended to communicate knowl-edge. 121 In many instances, program softwareserves that function and could be considereda public record, unless deemed sensitive or pro-prietary.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, anotherappellate court in Florida has compared soft-ware programs to code books accompanyingwritten documents. In Seigle v. Barry,122 thecourt determined that the information storedin a computer was analogous to informationrecorded in a written code. If a written publicrecord were maintained in such a manner thatit could only be interpreted with a code, thena code book should be provided to requesters.According to the court, it followed that com-puter programs should be furnished to re-questers when electronic information wouldotherwise be inaccessible.

Remote Access

The growing use of personal computers withmodems opens up entirely new possibilities forremote access to computerized FOIA records.Some agencies are making public records avail-able online in public reference rooms and atremote locations.

“’’379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980)‘“ Ibid.“’422 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4 D.C. A. 1982)

236

Remote access to Federal information couldfacilitate searches for requesters as well asagencies. Remote access would allow users toissue queries directly, reducing search time foragencies. Currently, FOIA requests are issuedon paper, and computer programs are writtenat the discretion of agency personnel. If dataare distributed in hard copy or tapes, users arerequired to re-input or download to their owncomputers.

If remote access is to be considered as a de-livery option for FOIA records, the followingareas would need to be addressed: security; lia-bility for errors; cost; requirements for userassistance; upkeep of data files; privacy pro-tection; control of levels of use; standard set-ting for hardware and data presentation; andcompetition with private online databasevendors. 123

Computers Are Prompting NewDiscussion About the Basic Purposes

of FOIA

The original movement for enacting Federalfreedom of information laws in the UnitedStates gained momentum in the 1940’s and1950’s. In 1966, when FOIA was passed, theassurance of basic access to governmentrecords represented a significant strengthen-ing of the open government principle. Al-though the United States Government is nowheralded internationally for its policies of open-ness, FOIA is still narrowly interpreted as abasic “access to records” statute.

In addressing the impacts of new technol-ogies, Congress may need to reconsider the pur-poses and goals of FOIA. If new procedures

‘~:) Florida State Legislature, Joint Committee on Informa-tion Technology Resources, Remote Computer Access to Pub-lic Records in Florida, January 1985.

need to be instituted for an electronic FOIA,the policies behind the procedures should beevaluated and clarified. Computer records bearfew similarities to the paper records of 1966.New database technologies have begun to raisequestions about whether computer-stored in-formation can even be conceptualized in termsof discrete records.

For the 1990’s and beyond, Congress needsto decide whether the FOIA should continueto be viewed as an “access to records” statuteor whether it should be perceived more broadly,as an “access to information” statute. This isnot to suggest that public access to computer-stored government information should be un-limited; access must be balanced against eco-nomic and personnel constraints of Federalagencies. However, due to the explosivegrowth in electronic information storage, proc-essing, and transmission by the Federal gov-ernment, traditional views about records andsearches need to be modified to ensure evenbasic access to public information.

As technology is continually evolving, set-ting objective criteria for defining records andappropriate search efforts will be difficult.Nevertheless, working toward greater statu-tory specificity could bean important first stepin ensuring an adequate level of access. If thestatutory language is not modified to addresselectronic information, agencies may have newopportunities to legally withhold certainclasses of materials from the public. The caselaw in many areas is too limited, conflicting,or vague to give comprehensive or consistentdirection to agencies and courts. Even in thoseareas where the case law is clear, variation inagency practice calls for stronger legislativeguidance. If Congress wishes to maintain theintegrity of the FOIA in an electronic environ-ment, the goals of the statute should be reas-sessed, and statutory amendment pursued.

—.

Chapter 10

The Electronic Press Release andGovernment-Press Relationships

Reporter sitting at video display

Photo credit: USA TODAY, Gannett, Co., Inc., All rights reserved.

terminal

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................239Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................240Functions and Problems of Agency Press Offices . ....................241Status of Automation in Federal Agency Press Offices . ...............242

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....242U.S. Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........243Environmental Protection Agency . ...............................243White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................244Bureau of Labor Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........244The Federal Election Commission . . . . . . ...........................244

Status of Automation in Press Newsrooms. . .........................245Challenges to Government/Press Automated Dissemination. . ...........247

Need for Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................247Need for Improved Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..247Need for Completeness and Quality Control . .......................247Private Contracting and Price Control. . ...........................247Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy . ...........................248

Technological and Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........248Technological Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........248Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............250

—

Chapter 10

The Electronic Press Release andGovernment-Press Relationships

SUMMARY

Although the Federal Government dissem-inates information through several means, thelargest cross section of the U.S. population re-ceives its government information via thepress. Some Federal agencies have begun todesign electronic mail systems to distributepress releases and other time-sensitive infor-mation (such as crop reports, weather bulle-tins, and economic and trade data) to newslet-ters, news magazines, and television and radionews broadcasters. If managed properly, elec-tronic press release services could provide cost-effective and efficient alternatives or supple-ments to traditional messenger or mail deliv-ery of paper releases.

The goals of this chapter are to examine cur-rent methods of delivering perishable informa-tion to the press, to explore a range of techno-logical and strategic alternatives for electronicdelivery of Federal news and data, and to ex-amine the implications of electronic deliveryfor effective and equitable access by the press.To the extent that electronic dissemination bythe Federal Government affects the ability ofthe press to cover and report on governmentactivity, Congress has an oversight role to en-sure that access by the press is enhanced.

At present, Federal agency use of electronicnews distribution systems is highly variable,and the implications for equity of press accessto Federal information have not been fully con-sidered. The primary advantage of the elec-tronic press release is timeliness, both for re-gional newspapers and media outlets, as wellas for Washington, DC news organizationsthat otherwise would depend on the mail orexpensive messenger services. In general, elec-tronic press releases are more cost-effectivethan courier or messenger services. Also, elec-

tronic press releases can offer greater selec-tivity and more efficient archiving than paperformats.

Federal agencies currently use a variety ofcontractor-provided or commercial services forelectronic dissemination of perishable informa-tion. Some of these services are provided inresponse to agency initiatives; others are pro-vided by vendors purely as a commercial offer-ing to the news industry.

The most important issue for congress toconsider is equity of press access to agencypress releases and other time-sensitive infor-mation. While electronic press releases couldbe especially helpful to smaller, out-of-townnews organizations, the potential benefitscould go unrealized if costs or technical bar-riers are prohibitive. The Federal Governmentmay need to consider paying for electronicpress releases entirely with Federal funds (atno charge to the press); charging the press onlythe marginal cost of dissemination (excludingcosts of developing and maintaining data-bases); or establishing sliding-scale fee sched-ules for smaller or less affluent news outlets.At least for a lengthy transition period, dualformat (paper and electronic) would appear tobe necessary to ensure that those news out-lets without, or lacking interest in, online ca-pability are guaranteed access to traditionalpress releases and perishable data,

At the technical level, a number of alterna-tive electronic press release delivery systemswarrant consideration, including:

● computer-to-computer electronic mail;● electronic wire services;● electronic bulletin boards;• facsimile transmissions; and

239

240

● electronic mail or wire services with ab-stracting, printout, and storage capa-bilities.

The latter alternative may provide a desirablebalance between the visible, tangible papercopy offered by traditional wire services, andthe selectivity and archival capability offeredby computer storage.

Other issues that warrant attention includethe need for a more complete, consistent, and

better coordinated approach to Federal agencyelectronic press release distribution; standardson archiving and quality control; and guide-lines for involvement of private sector contrac-tors in disseminating electronic press releases.Decisions about the future direction of Fed-eral electronic press release services shouldtake into account the specific functions andproblems of agency press offices, as well as thecurrent status of automation in pressnewsrooms.

INTRODUCTIONAlthough the Federal Government dissem-

inates information through several means, thelargest cross section of the U.S. population re-ceives its government information via thepress. The recent General Accounting Office(GAO) Survey of Federal Information Usersindicated that newspapers, newsmagazines,and newsletters are among the primary meansby which the public obtains Federal informa-tion (see ch. 5, Table 5-11, for partial surveyresults). Since World War I, Washington, DChas emerged as the principal locus of news gen-eration in the United States, reflecting thegrowing importance of the Federal Govern-ment as a major source of information to theU.S. press.

The press serves a unique intermediary func-tion between the government and the public.It functions bothasa‘‘private citizen’ or userof public information in its own right, and asan interpreter and disseminator of this infor-mation.

This chapter explores how reporters receiveinformation from the Federal Government, andexamines government press offices and pressnewsrooms—essential links between public in-formation providers and private informationgatherers. As these links begin to take elec-tronic and digital form, a change may be tak-ing place in the timeliness and even contentof news stories.

The press obtains Federal informationthrough a wide variety of channels (including

direct contacts, press releases, Freedom of In-formation Act requests, and published dataand reports). This chapter focuses on press re-leases (concise, written summaries of news anddata), and explores electronic alternatives tothe traditional modes of distributing press re-leases and other time-sensitive information tothe news media. While some Federal agenciesalready disseminate press releases electroni-cally, participation is far from complete, andnumerous policy questions need to be consid-ered. The following evaluation of alternativemethods takes into account the functions, pro-blems, and status of automation in agencypress offices and press newsrooms.

The discussion is based primarily on inter-views with press officers, members of tradeassociations, electronic information vendors,wire service providers, and reporters, editors,librarians, and systems managers at small andlarge papers throughout the country. The goalis to highlight general trends and issues thatwarrant congressional attention, and to pointtoward areas requiring more systematic andintensive research in the future. Press offices,according to Don Obendorfer of the Washing-ton Post, are “the junction point where the gov-ernment and press meet. For most reporters,it what it all about—the clips, the releases,the briefings—and yet nobody ever studiesthat stuff.” 1

‘Steven Hess, The Government/Press Connection (Washing-ton, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1984).

241

FUNCTIONS AND PROBLEMS OF AGENCY PRESS OFFICES

When evaluating technologies or institu-tional arrangements involving the workingpress, a very important element to consideris time. The goal of a reporter is to maximizehis/her news gathering and reporting in mini-mal amounts of time and to cover breakingnews. The timeliness of press releases and theirdelivery can help determine whether a newsstory makes front page headlines or is buriedinside. In the aggregate, newspaper and me-dia coverage can help shape the public percep-tion of the importance of events, and eventu-ally mold the constellation of issues that meritpublic policy attention.

The functions of government press officesare difficult to generalize. Federal Governmentpress offices are as varied in quality as arereporters’ perceptions of their utility. The com-plexion of any given press office may changewith each administration in terms of person-nel, budget, ratio of career civil servants to pub-lic appointees, involvement in broader publicaffairs functions, and overall objectivity of theinformation disseminated. Within a singlepress office, certain individuals may win thetrust of reporters while others function asagency apologists.

Aside from these significant differences,press officers perform similar basic functions:arranging press conferences, briefings, and in-terviews; and notifying reporters of events andpublications through press releases, press ad-visories, wire service releases, and telephonecalls. Most also serve a broader fact-findingand verification function. Like reporters, pressofficers have beats within their agencies, al-lowing them to become familiar with person-nel, issues, and procedures in specific areas ofagency activity.

An important, but often overlooked, func-tion of the press office is the daily collectionand circulation of news clippings to senioragency officials. Many government executiveslearn what is being written about their actions,their agencies, and their adversaries throughthese intensive doses of narrowly-focused

news. In terms of political agenda-setting, theclippings files have served to enhance the in-fluence of the newspapers, particularly theNew York Times and the Washington Post,over the broadcast media and also over papersfrom other regions. Some papers that merit at-tention have been excluded by clipping serv-ices due to their distance from Washington.The use of online dissemination has begun tochange the mix of newspapers represented inthe files, and could perhaps affect governmentperspectives on regional outlooks and issues.The White House has subscribed to a com-puterized clipping service since 1982.

The growth of the Washington press corpshas heightened the need for press offices. Pressoffices serve, in part, to facilitate the govern-ment information function in the form of pressconferences, briefings, and the distribution ofprepared materials. As government grows, bu-reaucracies become increasingly difficult forreporters to cover; the press office performsa coordinating and frequently centralizingfunction at the press-government interface. Italso may serve as a buffer to discriminationin reporting. While reporters often seek to by-pass press offices and contact technical andpolicy staff directly, access to top officials isgenerally accorded largely to reporters fromthe most prestigious and well known mediaoutlets. Press offices, on the other hand, aremandated to respond to diverse news organi-zations. Although some degree of discrimina-tion may occur even here, these offices serveto institutionalize at least some degree of ac-cess by all members of the press. z

Most large agencies have highly decen-tralized press functions, with a department-level office answering to the national media.For example, all major agency components atthe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)have their own information offices. The Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) press activities are separated bothfunctionally and regionally, with separate

‘ibid. -

242.

press and public relations offices in differentprograms as well as regional NASA centers.Decentralization may complicate news-gath-ering tasks, but at the same time allows pressofficers to maintain closer contact with theirsources within agencies.

A problem affecting some press offices thatare attempting to create online release serv-ices is the competition for funding and controlwith agency Information Resources Manage-ment (IRM) offices. When the Paperwork Re-duction Act of 1980 was enacted, the role ofthe press offices as potential generators of on-line services does not appear to have been con-sidered. In several cases, IRM personnel haveassumed responsibility for designing deliverysystems to serve the press. IRM staff, gener-ally schooled in computer programming anddata processing, may have little or no under-

standing of journalistic perspectives and re-quirements.

The growing trend toward combination ofpress activities with public affairs activitiespresents another possible barrier to effectivepress operations. In 1981, the Office of Per-sonnel Management (OPM) instituted new jobstandards that require press officers seekingpromotion beyond a GS-13 level to be trainedin the range of public affairs functions. Publicaffairs activities include organizing exhibits,producing graphic and broadcast materials,conducting visitor and outreach activities, anddeveloping advertising programs. These newjob standards may serve as disincentives fortrained journalists to apply for positions inFederal agencies. In a few years, it may be-come increasingly difficult to find specializedpress officers in the Federal Government.

STATUS OF AUTOMATION INFEDERAL AGENCY PRESS OFFICES

In recent years, several Federal agencies anddepartments have initiated electronic press re-lease services. According to the GAO surveyof 114 civilian agency components (see ch. 4,Table 4-24), the following percentages of agen-cies already used or planned to use electronicmeans for the release of information to thepress: electronic mail (28 percent); electronicbulletin boards (12 percent); electronic datatransfer (13 percent); and floppy disk (7percent).

The adoption of electronic news dissemina-tion technologies is not uniform among agen-cies. Six brief examples are presented below.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

As a first example, USDA has undertakenan intensive effort to deliver news releases andother perishable information by means of elec-tronic services. The effort was motivated, inpart, by a desire to save on postage costs andto comply with the Paperwork Reduction Actand OMB guidelines.

USDA Online, produced by the USDA in-formation office, includes:

national and regional press releases;two-page daily briefings of news storiesaffecting USDA programs;databases on food, nutrition, animalhealth, and agriculturalagricultural statisticsreports;calendars of events;phone listings of USDAan electronic messaging

trade;and economic

personnel; andservice.

Due to funding constraints, USDA cannot pro-vide this electronic service free to the press,although free printed press releases and pressmailings are still provided. USDA Online isavailable on FedNews through Dialcom, Inc.,a commercial electronic mail service. To date,the service is used primarily by land grant col-leges and universities, trade associations, Fed-eral and State agricultural agencies, and farmbureaus.

USDA also maintains an independent, full-text delivery service, EDI (Electronic Dissem-ination of Information), which releases onlyperishable information. EDI was designed asa wholesale information service, contracted

—

through Martin Marietta Data Systems to sellUSDA information to resellers or “multiplex-ers.” EDI contains information from severalof the USDA agencies. EDI includes crop andlivestock reports, agricultural research reports,national and regional press releases, daily two-page news briefs, and other perishable infor-mation.

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is planning for electronicdistribution of judicial opinions. The initialpush for automation at the Supreme Courtcame from the press in 1982, by way of theAmerican Newspaper Publisher Associationand the American Society of Newspaper Edi-tors. These trade associations were motivatedby the demands of out-of-State news reporterswho wanted direct and quick access to Su-preme Court opinions. Supporting the requestwere the looseleaf and the legal database serv-ices, such as West, Mead, and the Lawyer’sCo-op, which currently transcribe the full textof decisions from hard copy into their data-bases. Also supporting the initiative wereState court judges and lawyers who believedthat wire service synopses did not adequatelydescribe opinions.

Supreme Court opinions are currently trans-mitted to the news media via paper. Prior toentry into online databases, such as Lexis,Westlaw, and BNA Online, they need to bescanned or transcribed. Reporters in the Su-preme Court press gallery are the first to ob-tain copies of new decisions.

About 150 new decisions are issued by theSupreme Court each year. The Court provides175 photocopies or “bench copies” of each newdecision, and subsequently prints slip opinions(bench copies in a slightly different form) whichare released two to three days after the opin-ions are handed down. More than 4,000 copiesof each new decision are printed by U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office (GPO), inch-ding 400for the Court, 225 for the Administrative Of-fice of the U. S. Courts, and 360 for the De-partment of Justice. Slip opinions are providedfree of charge to the press and public. Boundvolumes of opinions, the United States

243

Reports, are available from GPO, about 18months after the Court recesses. Opinions arealso reprinted by commercial vendors.

The time value of electronic release wouldbe extremely important for State and Federalcourts whose verdicts may be hinging on Su-preme Court decisions. Requests from Federaljudges are currently handled piecemeal, anddistributed by facsimile machines. Within thenext several years, computer-aided legal re-search will be available in the chambers of allFederal judges; and as a consequence, thedesirability of online transmission will in-crease. Legal reporting services currently re-ceive the full text of opinions by mail or mes-senger.

Online full-text release of Supreme Courtopinions would be of value to the press for sev-eral reasons. The instant availability of full textat remote locations would allow reporters tosolicit informed commentary from affected par-ties as well as legal scholars. In addition toreporters on the Supreme Court beat, editors,financial reporters, and reporters on relatedbeats would gain access to copies of decisions.Online full-text release would allow for broaderparticipation in the analysis of decisions andtheir impacts.

Online release of Supreme Court opinionscould have regional significance as well. Whenseveral opinions are handed down on the sameday, cases of regional interest are often over-looked by the national newspapers and newsbroadcasters. Online delivery of decisions couldgive regional news organizations greater au-tonomy in reporting their stories. The Courtis currently considering the possibility of work-ing with a single, nonprofit organization toserve as a depository or disseminator of opin-ions at the lowest cost to the public.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Known by the news community to have oneof the most responsive press offices in Wash-

ington, EPA has chosen not to employ an elec-tronic news release system. Instead, the agencypays for regular messenger runs to about 50 pub-lications in Washington and mails additional ma-terials to media in other regions. EPA also mails

244

releases to any citizens requesting them, main-taining a current mailing list of 3,000. At its cur-rent level of computer sophistication, EPA hasnot found a system that is priced comparablyto hard copy. After polling newspapers, EPAfound that most were not adequately equippedto receive releases via Dialcom, Inc. electronicmail, a system that EPA relies on for its inter-nal communications. According to EPA, only asmall percentage of the larger papers can effec-tively use electronic mail releases. In addition,the trade publications that focus on EPA activ-ities (e.g., Inside EPA, Toxic Materials Report,Clean Water Report) generally lack dial-up elec-tronic capabilities. Although EPA sees flaws inmessenger services (too slow for late-breakingstories, increased pressure to release announce-ments early), it still finds them to be an economi-cal and thorough distribution mechanism. EPAdoes send releases to U.S. Newswire, anew wireservice that transcribes hard copy releases andtransmits them mainly to the larger papers andbureaus in Washington.

White House

In 1984, in an effort to reduce the volumi-nous paperwork involved in its media relationsactivities, the White House pilot-tested an on-line news release program with an exclusivefeed to Dialcom, Inc. for incorporation into itselectronic mail system. Controversy ensued,however, when other private sector vendorsdemanded equal access to this online informa-tion. The White House press corps objectedto these services as a potential threat to theirown viability, voicing procedural concernsabout breaking traditional “rules of the brief-ing room” regarding judicious attribution ofsources. Furthermore, some members of thepublic expressed propaganda concerns. Usersof the system complained that the White Housewas slow to enter briefings into the daily sys-tem, making the service less valuable thanexpected.

The White House has since discontinued itselectronic effort. Press releases in hard copyformat are left in the New Executive OfficeBuilding for members of the nonresident press

corps. Transcripts of briefings now remain onfile in the White House press room, ostensi-bly accessible only to the White House presscorps (1,800 reporters). Nevertheless, WhiteHouse briefings are independently taped bycommercial newswire services (such as the Fed-eral News Service and Press Text) that trans-mit the transcribed texts verbatim to clients.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Although BLS makes its employment figures,Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index,and collective bargaining settlements availableonline, it has found that the broadest segmentof the press is neither equipped nor organizedto receive electronic mail transmissions, andstill prefers paper copies of releases. Most ofits online subscribers are libraries and researchorganizations. Particularly in cases of embar-goed release times (for the unemployment rateand the Consumer Price Index, for example),BLS has found that reporters prefer to retrievehard copies at the agency press office and tele-phone their stories, rather than wait for re-leases to print from computers. Wire servicesalso prefer this method, as they may be re-quired to feed broadcast news programs whichmay be aired within a few minutes of thesereleases.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

FEC provides detailed campaign finance in-formation online in a variety of formats. FEChas made innovative use of its Freedom of In-formation Act (FOIA) infrastructure to satisfyrequests from the press and public for com-puterized and computer-generated informa-tion. It merits mention as it has managed tokeep prices relatively low for its users, includ-ing the press. FEC accomplished this by coup-ling its delivery services with its internal com-puter service contract with Digital EquipmentCorp., avoiding intermediate delivery services.Connect charges and annual fees have beenavoided, and FEC data can be accessed at anhourly usage charge of $25. All the major na-tional news media in Washington receive thisservice. Smaller newspapers may request pa-

. .

245— —

per versions of reports that are free to re- ation, which allowed them to provide the tapesquesters. FEC rationalizes its program as a outside of the FOIA process and charge userspinoff of the FOIA process. Under FOIA, fees. Requesters can choose either to receiveFEC has provided computer tapes upon re- reports online, or download raw data into theirquest since 1980. The Commission subse- personal computers to be reworked with desk-quently added a dialup capability to the oper- top software.

STATUS OF AUTOMATION --

It is difficult to make predictions about fu-ture penetration of Federal electronic informa-tion dissemination technologies into news-rooms. First, electronic offerings of the Federalgovernment are slowly and unevenly makingthemselves known to the media they wish totarget. Second, newsroom technology is in astate of transition. It is difficult to predictwhether newspapers will evolve in a linear fash-ion toward greater technological sophistica-tion, or whether cultural and practical barrierswill stunt technological growth.

During the seventies, the newspaper indus-try adopted computerized word-processing,editing, and publishing systems. With somemajor exceptions, mid-sized newspapers werethe first to accept new technologies. TheDetroit News, the Providence Journal and theDes Moines Register, for example, automatedtheir newsrooms long before the WashingtonPost or the Wall Street Journal. Due to thecumbersome nature of retooling, a number ofthe largest papers are still in the process ofautomating various production and editorialfunctions. At the other end of the spectrum,the smallest papers, although computerized,sometimes lack the resources and personnelneeded to handle large amounts of incomingelectronic data. Automation in newsroom tech-nology has grown out of the automation of pro-duction technology. Several large papers todayare curious hybrids of obsolete newsroom tech-nology and avant garde production equipment.

It is not coincidental that automation andconsolidation in the newspaper industry bothoccurred during the seventies. Chain owner-ship has decreased the risks associated withexperimentation and has been an importantcatalyst for innovation. Several small, chain-

IN PRESS NEWSROOMS

owned papers have been selected as prototypesfor newsroom automation. These papers gen-erally are chosen for their secure positions innoncompetitive or physically isolated markets.The first paper to use electronic pagination,part of the electronic publishing technologythat is revolutionizing the nature of produc-tion, was the Pasadena Star, a small paper be-longing to the Knight-Ridder chain. Knight-Ridder selected another of its small papers toexperiment with changes in circulation hours.Gannett, the largest domestic newspaperchain, has selected a small paper in CocoaBeach, Florida, to experiment with new tech-nological as well as editorial concepts.

An organizational manifestation of the com-puter revolution among newspapers is thegrowth in importance of the newspaper library,a central locus of online database retrieval. Thiscentralizing trend is likely to continue as ameans of controlling database retrieval costs.As database retrieval frequently requires spe-cialized knowledge of different search pro-tocols, the importance of the newspaper librar-ian is likely to grow.

As a group, news writers are slow to embracenew technologies. The legendary black Royaltypewriter still maintains an elevated positionin many newsrooms alongside oversized word-processing screens. Editors are less inclinedto use electronic technologies than youngerreporters who have grown up with portable per-sonal computers.

There are two classes of information thatreporters at some newspapers can retrievefrom the computers at their desks: wire serv-ices and clippings files. Relatively few news-room PCs are equipped with modems. Desk-

246

top wire access can be highly efficient. At theLouisville Courier Journal, reporters’ desktopcomputers are programmed to segregate over100 wire services into queues according to sub-ject matter (sports, politics, Washington news),as well as type of service (AP advisories, APdomestic, AP international, AP Washington,Supplementary Washington wires, Supple-mentary international, etc.). Reporters can alsoreceive Nexis, Vu/Text, and other commer-cially available news clipping files.

Computers in the newsroom have changedthe process of writing and the substance ofnews. From the field, stories can now be relayedelectronically between reporters and editors,allowing for quick turnaround time of editeddrafts, and potentially involving more individ-uals in the story-writing process. This oppor-tunity did not exist 5 years ago when storieswere written on paper and dictated over tele-phones.

USA Today has revolutionized the news-paper business in its production and distribu-tion technologies, as well as its format. TheUSA Today emphasis on short stories hasmade it dependent on wire services to a higherdegree than most large papers. The emphasison graphics in USA Today, facilitated by newtechnologies, has placed a premium on the in-clusion of statistics in its incoming wire serv-ice reports, thus affecting the way wirereporters gather their news.

In terms of online databases, the innovatorsfor the newspapers have been the full-textnewspaper compendia. For example, in addi-tion to Nexis, the Washington Post receivesVu/Text (regional papers), Datasolve (full textof the Economist and the Financial Times), andData Times (newspaper texts and gatewaysto Dow Jones). The Post has recently expandedthe range of its online subscriptions to include

DIALOG, PaperChase and Grateful Med (med-ical), Dow Jones News/Retrieval, Legi-Slate(congressional information), FEC campaign fi-nance data, BLS releases, the Federal NewsService (wire), and US Newswire (U.S. govern-ment news). It is soon to receive Wilsonline(bibliographic citations to journals) andCompu-Serve.

Small regional and local papers withoutWashington bureaus should be considered in-dependently because their needs, interests, andresources are distinct from larger papers. Theyare particularly interesting to study in the tech-nological context, because online technologiescould open new communication channels andgive them greater autonomy in reporting na-tional news.

Today, Federal Government information isa relatively small fraction of the news of re-gional and local papers. This results from a lackof interest as well as resources. Small papershave become dependent on national wire serv-ices and telephoned news stories, in part be-cause press releases mailed from Federal agen-cies to small papers outside Washington areboth erratic and slow. Final copy is eitherreprinted wholesale from the wire services,moderately altered, or rewritten with local an-gles. The traditional wire services aim tosatisfy broad audiences, often failing to coverstories of regional interest. Direct online ac-cess by small papers to Federal agencies couldenhance local awareness of relevant nationalnews.

While small papers could benefit substan-tially from the electronic receipt of FederalGovernment information, many are currentlyinhibited by a lack of data-carrying capacityand lack of financial and personnel resourcesto accommodate high-priced electronicofferings.

247— —

CHALLENGES TO GOVERNMENT/PRESSAUTOMATED DISSEMINATION

Need for Coordination

There is a clear need for better communica-tion and coordination between those agencieschoosing to disseminate press releases elec-tronically. FedNews, offered through Dialcom,Inc., is the most significant effort at a consoli-dated Federal electronic news-release serviceto date. Eleven agencies currently offer newsreleases and other perishable information onFedNews, including: the USDA, Federal Com-munications Commission (FCC), Bureau of theCensus, NASA, Food and Drug Administra-tion, Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment, Department of the Interior, U.S.Army, and Army Reserve. Releases are dis-tributed unedited; agencies may determine thefrequency and range of materials included. TheFedNews menu allows materials to be searchedby key words or dates; it can be scanned orread in full-text.

Decentralization in database and news-release distribution is a problem within andamong agencies. All major agencies withinUSDA have created separate databases thatcould be made available online. Some of theseare highly specialized. USDA’s EDI system,the department only online service consist-ing solely of perishable information, receivesmaterials from roughly half of the USDAagencies.

Need for Improved Communication

Many newsroom librarians are inadequatelyinformed about the availability of Federal elec-tronic services, and there are no comprehen-sive indexes to Federal electronic services. Afew agencies are aware of this problem andhave made substantial efforts to stimulatepublic awareness. Both FEC and NLM (Grate-ful Meal) have held press conferences on theironline services, outlining their range of offer-ings, costs, and compatible computer systems.

Another communication gap exists betweennewsroom librarians and reporters. While

librarians are interested in and trained in theretrieval of online information, many reportersremain uninterested or uninformed. As mostreporters have not learned to use online serv-ices in daily reporting, library education andoutreach must be energetic.

Still another communication gap lies be-tween agency press offices and the private in-formation providers who operate their services.Although service providers claim media sub-scribers, they rarely maintain adequate statis-tics to verify user numbers. Some providerssell first to “multiplexers” who then resell theservices, making total client estimates increas-ingly difficult. Agencies could require thatservice firms track their clients more thor-oughly and require that sales and customer sta-tistics be provided.

Need for Completeness andQuality Control

Online databases may be incomplete or in-consistent in quality. Even on FedNews, par-ticipation by agencies varies. Some agenciesuse FedNews as a regular release mechanism(USDA updates its entries daily), while othersuse it as a supplemental service with only spo-radic entries. Reporters tapping into FedNewsmight not understand these distinctions, andmight find the service unreliable.

Private Contracting and Price Control

The tendency of private contractors to sellto other private vendors, or “multiplexer”,can contribute to escalating prices and delays.Several issues need to be resolved: whether pri-vate vendors should be responsible for the de-livery of public information and especiallytime-sensitive information like press releases;whether licensees or contractors own the value-added material they distribute; and whetheragencies have the power to impose pricing ordistribution requirements on licensees or con-tractors. Price escalation associated with the

involvement of intermediaries could create pro-nounced inequities for small papers.

Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy

The absence of paper copies of press releasescould present a problem for some news orga-nizations. Several Federal press offices inter-viewed by OTA cited the Paperwork Reduc-tion Act as the principal impetus for venturesinto online news release distribution. Although

most claim that online information is also avail-able in paper format, this would seem to nul-lify some of the logic for initiating computer-ized distribution systems. Although it is clearthat there is ample room for paperwork reduc-tion in press release activities, reducing papercopies beyond a reasonable minimum couldhave a detrimental effect on the press, and par-ticularly small papers that do not have elec-tronic retrieval capabilities.

TECHNOLOGICAL AND STRATEGIC CHOICES

Technological Choices

Choosing new technological means to servethe press is not simply a decision for Federalagencies. Interest and technological readinessmust be expressed by the media. In order tomaximize the usefulness of new services, agen-cies must understand their potential clients.

The news media currently display wide-rang-ing levels of technological sophistication, vary-ing according to type of media (newspapers,magazines, newsletters, wire services, radio,television broadcasters), size of firms, andownership structures (group-owned versus in-dependent). Media interest in new electronicservices varies according to such factors astechnological sophistication, proximity toWashington, and level of income.

In this era of technological transition, themost flexible services will be the most valu-able. Some alternatives for delivery of infor-mation to the press are outlined below, alongwith a discussion of advantages and disadvan-tages to facilitate agency and congressionalunderstanding.

Hard Copy Release

The most common form of transmittingnewsworthy government information to thepress involves the timed release of paper doc-uments. When actively distributed, hard copyrelease is dependent on the mail or on mes-senger services and can be slower than elec-

tronic alternatives. It is necessary that paperreleases remain available to serve recipientswithout computers.

Alternatives for hard copy release include:●

●

Hard copy releases sent by messenger ormailed to the press, accompanied by tele-phone “call-outs” to alert press about par-ticularly important events;Hard copy releases deposited in agencypress rooms for the newspapers’ mes-sengers to retrieve, or for use by in-housereporters. Hard copy mailings for out-of-State papers.

Computer-to-Computer Electronic Release

Computer-to-computer electronic mail is byfar the most widely used electronic press re-lease dissemination mode. The choice of elec-tronic mail by most agencies probably resultsfrom the fact that this technology is becom-ing widely used for agency internal communi-cations. Computer-to-computer electronic mailis not optimally suited to the press, however,as its contents are not immediately visible. Tolog onto an electronic mail system, searchersmust dial a number, enter a code, and pay con-nect charges and hourly fees. Computers re-ceiving mail-type messages are usually cen-trally located in newsroom libraries. As notedearlier, in order to control online costs, news-papers typically set up these systems so thataccess is not available from reporters’ termi-nals. Electronic mail may not be practical for

249

perishable releases that arrive at very irregu-lar intervals.

Computer-to-computer electronic release isbest suited for the provision of database serv-ices for research purposes. One advantage ofelectronic mail is that it allows for selectivityon the part of the reporter or researcher. Con-tents may be scanned for useful documents.Other advantages include archival capabilityand interactivity. Menu-driven systems can bedivided into subject areas that can be scannedor reviewed in full-text form.

As mentioned earlier, electronic mail maybean important vehicle through which smallpapers can receive unfiltered news from remotelocations. Full text databases for longer docu-ments could place smaller papers on a par withlarger papers that have easier direct access tothe hard copy documents. While database serv-ices are impractical and often times too costlyfor reporters with daily deadlines, they can beof value for longer stories, or for newsletter,magazine, and trade publications.

Alternatives for disseminating releases viaelectronic mail include:

● direct online release into newsroom com-puters, through contracting agreementswith private service firms (Dialcom, Inc.,EDS, etc.);

• direct or-dine release to multiplexer whooffer subscriptions to service firms (ED I);

. hard copy release by agencies, with pri-vate firms placing information online andmarketing services.

Wire Services

Wire service releases may be better suitedto daily news-gathering than electronic mail,as they can eliminate the necessity of enter-ing computer files to check for potential re-leases. Newswires can be received either di-rectly through reporters’ work stations or inhard copy form via teleprinters. Wire servicerelease of hard copy is a practical way to han-dle irregular information flows, and reportersare accustomed to watching wire teleprintersfor printouts.

—

Three existing alternatives for wire servicetransmission of government informationinclude:

●

●

●

Hard copy release by the agencies, pickedup by independent wire services thattransmit Federal information over tele-phone wires to newsroom computers orteleprinters (US Newswire). Fee for theagencies, free to the press.Hard copy transcripts of press briefingspicked up by independent wire servicesthat transmit Federal information by sat-ellite to newsroom computers or teleprinters(Federal News Service); local transmissionthe carried out via FM sideband radios.Fee for the press, free for the agencies.Online release of information to independ-ent wire services.

The first option has been adopted by USNewswire, founded in 1986 and currently serv-ing almost 100 news media outlets in the Wash-ington area. US Newswire transmits releasesand advisories over dedicated data lines leasedfrom the local telephone company, deliveringreleases via teleprinters installed in newsroomsor directly into newsroom computers. The tele-printer concept can eliminate the necessity ofsearching directories for news releases. Theservice is free to the media. Federal entitiesare charged per release, so this wire servicetends to be used for announcements with sig-nificant time value.

About 80 percent of US Newswire’s clientshave chosen the teleprinter mode of final de-livery. Most newspaper bureaus use tele-printers, as do television and radio stations.USA Today has chosen to receive U SNewswire along with other wire services suchas AP and UPI into reporters’ personal com-puters, while the Post has chosen to accept thewires via teleprinters, to avoid overuse of com-puters. US Newswire releases are saved for 24hours, unless stored by reporters. U SNewswire is distinguishable from traditionalwire services in that it assumes no abstract-ing or editorial functions; it simply transmitsreleases as issued.

250

Several congressional offices are now offer-ing information on US Newswire, along withthe U.S. Information Agency, EPA, Depart-ment of Transportation (DOT), Department ofCommerce, Department of Justice, DOI, HUD,and Department of Health and Human Serv-ices. The service currently costs $150 for a re-lease to 100 media outlets (and $55 for releaseto a shorter list of 45 media outlets). This costmust be weighed against the cost of individ-ual messenger-service runs to the media, andagainst message charges for electronic mail de-livery.

The Federal News Service, another new wireservice operation, uses a satellite to transmitdaily briefings from Capitol Hill, the State De-partment, the Pentagon, and the White Houseto computers and teleprinters at media out-lets. This is an expensive service for sub-scribers, yet Newsweek bureau personnel re-fer to it as “our life blood. ” Unlike thetraditional wire services, Federal News Serv-ice, US Newswire, and similar services deliverbriefings and speeches in unedited, full-textform. Federal News Service transcripts areplaced online shortly after the time of release.The service will soon be available alternativelythrough Dialcom, Inc.

Bulletin Boards

Electronic bulletin boards have not beenused extensively to inform the press about gov-ernment activities. Within agencies, bulletinboards tend to be small, specialized, and littlepublicized. Bulletin boards may grow in im-portance in the future, for example to servesmall newspapers wishing to be generally in-formed about a range of government activi-ties, but not seeking Federal information ona regular basis.

Facsimile Transmission

Facsimile transmission allows for high speedrelaying of individual messages to specific re-questers. Facsimile is not appropriate for high-volume paper releases, but it is a necessarycomponent of newsroom technology as it iswidely used by those organizations that have

not embraced full-scale electronic distributiontechnologies. Congressional offices, embassies,the Supreme Court, and the Pentagon all em-ploy facsimile distribution.

Facsimile is theoretically well suited to thepress because, like newswires, it delivers a tan-gible paper product that is visible upon deliv-ery. However, the routine use of facsimiletransmission is not expected because the ma-chines tend to become overloaded with incom-ing messages at press deadline times. If news-papers are using facsimile machines to sendtheir own documents, agencies will receivebusy telephone signals and perhaps miss theirown deadlines.

Electronic Mail or Wire Distribution withSome Abstracting and Printout Capability

The most suitable technology for distribu-tion of perishable information to the presswould appear to involve some combination ofwire service and computer communications. Ablending of electronic mail capabilities with theautomatic printout capabilities of a wire mes-sage would be well suited to the needs of thepress. Perhaps the best electronic option wouldinvolve the printing of short abstracts whennews releases reach the receiving computersystem (this type of approach is currently usedby the Washington bureau of the Wall StreetJournal, when receiving US Newswire). Sucha system could combine the selectivity, inter-activity, and flexibility of computer storagewith the tangible, visible hard-copy productof a wire service. Computer-to-printer elec-tronic mail technology is increasingly availablein the agencies, but most media outlets do notreceive releases in this manner. Ultimately,each agency must embrace a mix of technol-ogies to fit the varying levels of technologicalsophistication of the media they hope to reach,and to match the types of messages they wishto relay.

Strategic Choices

If Federal agencies choose to distribute elec-tronic press releases, they have several stra-tegic options available to them, in addition to

the technological choices outlined above. Cri-teria for evaluating the alternatives should ad-dress the potential problems and benefits forboth agencies and the media.

Evaluation criteria for the media:

cost;equity of access—services affordable tonewspapers (and other media outlets) ofdifferent sizes;geographical flexibility-services extend-ing to regional newspapers;speed—services received by papers in timefor daily deadlines;accessibility-electronic press releases ac-cessed in ways compatible with dailyreporting activities;archival capability;thoroughness, uniform frequency, andcentralization;flexibility of news releases (full-text data-bases, database-oriented perishable sta-tistics); andmaintenance of hard copy releases.

Evaluation criteria for Federal agencies:

costs for electronic press releases versuscosts of messenger-based and mail-basedpaper releases;interagency coordination in delivery ofelectronic press releases;extent of reach to media outlets—if serv-ice firms are involved, they should providemaximum coverage;ease of transmission; andspeed of transmission.

As mentioned earlier, electronic distributionof government information to the press canhave benefits in terms of speed, geographicalcoverage, archival capability, and selectivity.At the present time, however, electronic dis-semination efforts by Federal agencies arelimited. Among those involved in electronicdissemination, little communication or coordi-nation has occurred. Further coordination andpossibly centralization of these services wouldbenefit agencies as well as the press.

Electronic press release services currentlyvary in quality, frequency, and technical and

251

institutional frameworks for delivery. Differ-ent strategies for marketing and distributionhave created disparities in pricing and limitedaccess for small and regional papers. The tech-nologies selected for dissemination could havea major impact on the types of news organiza-tions that will benefit from these services.

Federal agencies may choose active or rela-tively passive roles in electronic dissemination.Regardless of the Federal role, private vendors,on their own initiative, are likely to continueto collect perishable Federal information andprovide it to the press in several ways, includ-ing: online database services; wire service re-leases transmitted verbatim and unedited orabstracted and edited; and clippings services.However, if all electronic press release activi-ties are left to the marketplace, news cover-age may be incomplete. Some media organi-zations, particularly smaller low-budgetcompanies, may be unable to afford market-place electronic offerings.

To the extent that electronic distribution ofnews releases (and other time-sensitive infor-mation) is judged to be desirable, Federal agen-cies may choose from a spectrum of arrange-ments. Selected examples are outlined below:

1.

2.

3.

Exclusive agreements with single privatevendors. Vendors would charge agenciesfor online services and also charge mediaclients for connect time. A potential draw-back is that Federal agencies could be-come locked into paying high fees, andprices could become prohibitive for somemedia groups. Also, sole contractorsmight receive competitive advantagesperceived to be unfair by other vendors.Online delivery of information to mul-tiplexer offering subscriptions to clients.Clients would include informationretailers and selected end users. Concernsabout high fees and equity of access couldsurface here as well. In addition, clienttracking could be difficult for agencies,and services might not reach intended me-dia users.Contracts with selected service firms ormultiplexers, supplemented by provision

252

40

5.

of on-line information to lower-cost distri-butors. Providing alternative accessthrough lower-cost vendors such as TheSource or Compu-Serve could help ad-dress concerns about high fees and equityof access. This scenario could still createconcerns for competing vendors about un-fair competition.On-line provision of press releases to wireservices. This alternative might mitigateconcerns about accountability, equity ofaccess, and possibly high fees. It couldalso generate concerns about unfair com-petition.Direct provision of electronic informationby Federal agencies. In this scenario,agencies would place their news releasesonline and distribute them directly tome-dia outlets. This could be fully or partiallygovernment subsidized. This alternativecould help ensure accountability and eq-uity of access. It could also raise concernsabout governmental costs, unfair compe-tition with private vendors, and possiblygovernment manipulation or control ofinformation.

Enhancing the effectiveness and equitabil-ity of electronic press release services will re-quire the resolution of several important ques-tions. One question is whether Federal agenciesusing sole contractors should be required toprovide alternative access through lower-costvendors. Another question is whether the useof intermediaries should be limited, in orderto control costs and foster accountability. Athird question involves pricing strategies. Asnoted earlier, pricing strategies vary signifi-cantly among the alternatives pursued to date.In the case of U.S. Newswire, Federal agen-cies pay for the service; the wires are free for

the media. In the case of the Federal NewsService, the media pay; the service is free tothe government. Both the media and the gov-ernment pay for both Fednews and ED I. A de-cision that needs to be resolved is whetheragencies should be required to create tieredpricing systems, including some form of pricecuts or subsidies for small media groups, de-pository libraries, or public interest groups.Still another unresolved issue is whethergreater collaboration among agencies shouldbe encouraged or required, in order to provide“one-stop-shopping’ for the media. This mightrequire standards for quality, consistency, anddelivery formats. A final issue is the preser-vation of hard copy materials. Even if elec-tronic press release services are widelyadopted, dual format (paper and electronic)would appear to be necessary to ensure thatthose news outlets without, or lacking inter-est in, online capability are guaranteed accessto traditional press releases and perishabledata.

It is clear that the electronic delivery of time-sensitive information raises problems as wellas opportunities for Federal agencies and otherFederal entities. As the use of electronic de-livery modes spreads throughout the FederalGovernment, attention should be directed toensuring that new technologies serve their in-tended beneficiaries. A growing media inter-est in using electronic newsgathering tech-niques warrants further experimentation withnew systems by executive agencies, as well ascongressional offices and Federal courts. Buta diversity in levels of interest, income, andautomation in the press mandates that newstrategies be flexible, multifaceted, and accom-modating.

Chapter 11

Federal InformationDissemination Policy in

an Electronic Age

Photo credit: Documents Center, Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory Universi ty

User accessing Federal information via an online information system

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . ...................255Renewed Commitment to Public

Access . . . . . . . ..................257Clarification of Governmentwide

Information DisseminationP o l i c y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 1

Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261Electronic. Paper Formats.. .. ....264Possible Congressional Actions . . . . . .267

Clarification of Institutional Rolesand Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

Improvements in InformationDissemination Management .. ....276

Electronic Publishing/DisseminationTechnical Standards . ............276

Governmentwide InformationI n d e x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 7

Government InformationDissemination InnovationCenters/Committees . ............278

Revised Information Resources andPersonnel Management . .........280

Improvements in ConventionalP r i n t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 3

Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....283T i m e l i n e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 8Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....288Cost Estimating and Billing

Procedures . . . . . ................289General Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .289

TablesTable Page

11-1. Illustrative Public LawsRelevant to InformationDissemination, 95th Through99th Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

11-2. Illustrative OTA ReportExcerpts Relevant toInformation Dissemination .. ...260

11-3. Selected Legislation Introducedin the 100th Congress Relevantto Information Dissemination ...261

11-4. Federal Agency Policies onElectronic InformationDissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265

Table Page11-5. Federal Civilian Agency

Research or EvaluationS t u d i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 8

n-6. Federal Employees in JobCategories Relevant toInformation Dissemination,Fiscal Year 1985 . .............281

11-7. Top 10 Federal Blue-CollarEmployers in Washington, DCMetropolitan Statistical Area,Fiscal Year 1985 . .............281

11-8. Top 10 Federal Agencies WithLargest Printing Workforce,Fiscal Year 1985 . .............282

11-9. Description of 20 SamplePrinting Jobs Used forEstimating Costs . ............284

11-10. Cost Estimates for 20 SamplePrinting Jobs, in Dollars, GPORegional and Main Plants .. ....284

11-11. Cost Estimates for 20 SamplePrinting Jobs, in Dollars, AgencyPlants and Private Printers. . . ..285

11-12. Estimated Total Costs for 20Sample Printing Jobs,in Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

11-13. Estimated Costs by Job andTotal for 20 Sample PrintingJobs, in Dollars, GPO MainPlant Procured and PrivatePrinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..286

11-14. Agency Views on Cost of GPOWork, 1983 Survey of AgencyC u s t o m e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 7

11-15. Agency Views on GPO Inhousev. GPO Contractors, 1983S u r v e y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 7

11-16. GPO Procured Printing,Percent of Jobs Delinquent,by Fiscal Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288

11-17. GPO Main Plant Printing,Percent of Jobs Delinquent,Fiscal Year 1987 . .............289

11-18. Results of GPO Quality Audits,Number of Defects Per 100Items, Inplant v. ProcuredAgency Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .290

11-19. Agency Views on GPO CostEstimates, 1983 Survey . ... .. 290

Chapter 11

Federal Information DisseminationPolicy in an Electronic Age

SUMMARY

The rapid deployment of electronic informa-tion technologies by Federal agencies, as withall major sectors of American society, is gen-erating a number of issues with respect topublic policy on Federal information dissemi-nation.

This chapter raises and examines severalbroad information policy issues. These include:

congressional commitment to public ac-cess to Federal information;the need for revision of governmentwideinformation dissemination policy-partic-ularly regarding cost-effectiveness, therole of the private sector, and electronicv. paper formats;the need for clarification of institutionalroles and responsibilities; andimprovements in information dissemina-tion management.

These analyses are followed by a discussionof ways to improve conventional printing activ-ities of the Federal Government with respectto cost, timeliness and quality, and estimat-ing and billing procedures.

A fundamental cross-cutting issue is publicaccess to Federal information. Debate over theuse of electronic formats, privatization, andthe like is obscuring the commitment of Con-gress to public access. Congress has expressedthrough numerous public laws the importanceof Federal information and the disseminationof that information in carrying out agency mis-sions and the principles of democracy and opengovernment. A renewed commitment to pub-lic access in an electronic age maybe needed.

Congress may wish to revise government-wide information dissemination policy. In sodoing, Congress would need to consider and

reconcile several sometimes competing con-siderations including:

●

●

●

●

●

enhancing public access,minimizing unnecessary overlap and dupli-cation in Federal information activities,reducing unnecessary or wasteful Federalinformation activities,optimizing the use of electronic v. paperformats,and optimizing the role of the privatesector.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)has promulgated its own view of appropriatepublic policy (in the form of OMB CircularsA-130 and A-76). The OMB view is controver-sial as it relates to Federal information dissem-ination. In the absence of clear and positivecongressional direction, conflict and confusionare likely to continue. Congress may wish toamend specific statutes (including the Print-ing Act, Depository Library Act, and Paper-work Reduction Act), promulgate its own ver-sion of the basic principles addressed in A-1 30,and establish guidelines on the role of the privatesector (including contracting out and provisionof value-added information products). Con-gress could act on a governmentwide, agency-by-agency, or program-by-program basis.

Congress also may wish clarify the roles andresponsibilities of Federal institutions involvedwith information dissemination, including mis-sion agencies and governmentwide dissemina-tion agencies such as the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO) and National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS). The advent of nu-merous options for electronic disseminationhas aggravated concerns about statutory au-thority (e.g., Printing Act v. Paperwork Re-duction Act jurisdiction over electronic for-

255

256

mats), separation of powers (e.g., legislativev. executive branch control over agency print-ing), procurement (Printing Act v. Brooks Actjurisdiction over electronic publishing systems),role of the private sector (e.g., privatization v.government incorporation of NTIS), and over-all policy guidance (e.g., OMB v. Joint Com-mittee on Printing [JCP] roles). These issueshave led to various proposals for reorganiza-tion of government information disseminationinstitutions. In the absence of congressionaldirection, conflict and confusion are likely tocontinue.

OTA identified several alternatives for im-provement of information dissemination man-agement that could be implemented in theshort-term by executive branch action usingexisting statutory authorities and with the con-currence of Congress, but with no required stat-utory action. Of course, one or any combina-tion of these alternatives could be incorporatedinto a legislative package, as amendments tovarious statutes, should Congress determinethat a stronger mandate is needed.

● There is a clear consensus that appropri-ate technical standards for electronic pub-lishing and dissemination are essential ifthe government wishes to realize poten-tial cost-effectiveness and productivityimprovements. The National Bureau ofStandards, (NBS), Defense Technical In-formation Center (DTIC) or another De-partment of Defense (DoD) component,and GPO could be assigned lead respon-bility to accelerate the ongoing standards-setting process, presumably incorporat-ing accepted or emerging industry stand-ards to the extent possible.

● There is also general consensus in and outof government for the establishment of agovernmentwide index to major Federalinformation products—regardless of for-mat—although there are differing viewson how to implement an index. GPO andNTIS (or a Government Information Of-fice, should one be established) with pos-sible assistance from the private sector

and information science community, couldbe assigned responsibility to consolidateand upgrade existing indices, directions,and inventories (including the results ofOMB surveys) into one integrated index.The index could be made available in mul-tiple formats and disseminated directfrom the government as well as via thedepository libraries and private vendors(perhaps in enhanced form).

● Federal agency officials expressed strongsupport for much improved mechanismsto exchange learning and experience abouttechnological innovations. Informationdissemination innovation centers could bedesignated or established in each branchof government, for example, at DTIC (forthe defense sector), NTIS and/or NBS (forthe civilian executive branch), and GPO(for the legislative branch), and undergrant or contract to a university or otherindependent, nonprofit research center.Agencies could be required to conduct“agency X-2000” studies to creatively ex-plore and develop their own visions of fu-ture information dissemination activities.

● Information dissemination is still not aneffective part of agency information re-sources management (IRM) programs. Avariety of IRM training, career develop-ment, budget, and management actionscould be implemented to give informationdissemination (including printing, publish-ing, press, public affairs, and the like) astronger and better understood role withinthe IRM concept. Also, whether within theIRM concept or otherwise, Federal agencyparticipation in electronic press releaseactivities could be expanded with elec-tronic releases provided directly to thepress, to private electronic news and wireservices and perhaps to depository libraries.

Finally, OTA identified several alternativesthat could be implemented to improve the gov-ernment conventional ink-on-paper printing.Despite the rapid increase in electronic formats,there is likely to be significant, continuing de-

257

mand for printed copies of a broad range of Fed-eral reports and other printed materials. Thus,for at least the next 5 years and probably longer,there will be a need to continually improve theFederal Government’s conventional printing.

Some Federal agencies have raised concernsabout the cost, timeliness, and quality of GPOprinting. Based on information available toOTA, the cost of GPO’s procured printing ap-pears to be competitive, and there appears tobe no financial basis for dismantling the GPOprinting procurement program. However, GPOmain plant inhouse work is more expensivethan procured work. There are several alter-natives for reducing the cost to Federal agen-cies including: use of special rates, reducingindirect costs and overhead, and use of cost-saving technology. With respect to timelinessof GPO procured work, the overall data do notsuggest a widespread delinquency problem.However, the percentage of delinquent print-ing jobs at the GPO main plant is two to threetimes higher than procured jobs. This warrantsfurther evaluation to determine the extent ofthe problem and possibly to take action to

smooth the work flow, encourage realistic de-livery estimates, and limit priority work. Withrespect to quality of GPO printing, again, theoverall data do not suggest a widespread prob-lem, although the defect rate for inhouse workis somewhat higher than for procured work.Other areas that appear to be in need of im-provement are cost estimating and billing pro-cedures. Routine itemized billing warrants con-sideration.

There is need for even stronger cooperativeworking relationships between agency printersand publishers and GPO staff, and betweenpublishers, printers, public information offi-cers, financial and procurement officers, andthe like within the agencies. Existing intra- andinteragency advisory groups could be reviewedand strengthened and/or new groups estab-lished.

Other potential improvements in conven-tional printing identified, but not examined byOTA, include use of nonacidic paper, alterna-tive printing inks, and expert systems softwarefor printing management.

RENEWED COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC ACCESS

A major crosscutting issue for this study ispublic access to Federal information. In thebroadest sense, all of the technical, institu-tional, and policy mechanisms discussed in pre-vious chapters are intended to facilitate pub-lic access. The debate in recent years overcost-effectiveness, privatization, and the likehas sometimes obscured the fundamental andenduring commitment of Congress and, indeed,of public law to the principle of public access.Information is the lifeblood of Federal Gov-ernment programs and activities and is essen-tial not only to the implementation of agencymissions, but to informed public debate, deci-sion, and evaluation concerning such programsand activities. Broad public access to such in-formation has been established by Congressas a primary policy objective to be accom-

plished through a variety of information dis-semination mechanisms, including govern-ment-initiated activities such as the GPO andNTIS document sales programs, the GPO de-pository library program (DLP), and citizen-initiated activities such as submitting FOIArequests.

The policy framework establishing public ac-cess as a goal of Federal information dissemi-nation consists of both governmentwide andagency-specific statutes plus various legisla-tive and executive branch directives, circulars,and guidelines.

Many governmentwide statutory provisionshave been codified in Title 44 of the U.S. Code(“Public Printing and Documents”). Several

258

key chapters of Title 44 include the followingillustrative provisions:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Chapter l–establishes the JCP “to remedyneglect, delay, duplication, or waste in thepublic printing and binding and the dis-tribution of Government publications. ”(44 U.S.C. 103).Chapters 3 and 5–establish GPO to beheaded by the Public Printer; require thatall printing, binding, and blank-book workfor the Government be done at GPO, ex-cept as approved by the JCP; and author-ize GPO to procure printing with approvalof the JCP. (44 U.S.C. 301, 501, 502).Chapters 7 and 9—establish rules, proce-dures, and authorities for printing, binding,and distribution of congressional docu-ments, including the Congressional Rec-ord, and specify responsibilities of the JCPand GPO, among others.Chapters 11 and 13–establish rules, pro-cedures, and authorities for printing, bind-ing, and distribution of executive and ju-dicial branch documents.Chapter 15–establishes the Office of theFederal Register (now located in the Na-tional Archives and Records Administra-tion [NARA]) and rules and procedures forpreparation of the Register and printingby GPO.Chapter 17–establishes the Superinten-dent of Documents (SupDocs) within GPOand the rules, procedures, and authoritiesfor SupDocs sale and distribution of pub-lic documents, preparation of an index topublic documents and catalog of govern-ment publications, and international ex-change of government publications;Chapter 19—establishes rules, procedures,and authorities for the DLP to be admin-istered by the SupDocs.Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33–establishrules, procedures, and authorities for thepreservation of historical materials (e.g.,books, documents, papers, maps) of thegovernment, and for management, reten-tion, and disposal of government records;assign responsibilities to the Administra-

●

—.

tor of General Services (GSA), Archivistof the United States, and Federal agen-cies; and assign administrative responsi-bility to the Archivist of the United States(and now NARA).Chapter 35—establishes rules, procedures,and-authorities for coordination and man-agement of Federal information policyrelevant to the collection, maintenance,use, and dissemination of Federal infor-mation and the acquisition and use ofautomatic data processing and telecom-munications technologies by the FederalGovernment; establishes the Office of In-formation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)in OMB; and assigns responsibilities toOIRA and Federal agencies.

Prior analyses by the Congressional Re-search Service (CRS) have found that Congresshas enacted literally hundreds of specific lawsthat assign information collection, clearing-house, directory, dissemination, and relatedfunctions to Federal agencies. ’ Some illustra-tive laws enacted by the 95th through 99thCongresses are shown in Table 11-1.

A review of prior OTA reports also revealedthat information dissemination is an importantaspect of many issues facing Congress, rang-ing from medical technologies to hazardouswaste disposal to ocean resource managementto energy conservation. Excerpts from selectedOTA reports are capsulized in Table 11-2.

Congress frequently includes the establish-ment or strengthening of information dissem-ination (and related collection) mechanisms inlegislative actions to address current problems,such as AIDS or international competitive-ness. The CRS list of legislation introduced inthe 100th Congress provides a further indica-tion of congressional intent, as highlighted inTable 11-3.

‘Sandra N. Milevski and Robert L. Chartrand, “InformationPolicy: Legislation of the 95-98th Congresses, With SelectedBills of the 99th Congress, ” Congressional Research Service,June 1985; Sandra N. Milevski, “Information-Related Legisla-tion of the 99th Congress, CRS, August 1986; Robert L. Char-trand, “Information Policy and Technology Issues: Public Lawsof the 95th through 99th Congresses, CRS, February 1987.

259.——. —

Table 11-1 .—illustrative Public Laws Relevant to Information Dissemination, 95th Through 99th Congresses— —. —

Public Laws (relevant provisions in capsule form)9 5 t h C o n g r e s sP.L. 95-87, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,

to establish a surface coal mining and reclamationinformation clearinghouse.

P.L. 95-166, National School Lunch Act and Child Nutri-tion Amendments, to disseminate nutritioni n f o r m a t i o n .

P.L. 95-267, National Climate Program Act, to gather anddisseminate national and international climate data.

P.L. 95-273. Ocean Pollution Research and MonitoringProgram Act, to establish an ocean pollutioninformation system.

P.L. 95-307, Forest and Park Rangeland Renewable Re-sources Research Act, to disseminate scientificinformation on all aspects of forest and rangelandrenewable resources.

96th CongressP.L. 96-302, Small Business Administration (SBA) Authori-

zation Act, SBA to create a small business economicdatabase and publish economic indices.

P.L. 96-345, Wind Energy Systems Research, Develop-ment, and Demonstration Act of 1979, Department ofEnergy (DOE) to collect, evaluate, and disseminatedata on wind energy systems.

P.L. 96-374. Education Act Amendments of 1980, Dept. ofEducation to establish an Information clearinghousefor the handicapped.

P.L. 96-399, Housing and Community Development Act of1980, Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) to collect and report data on sales prices fornew homes.

P.L. 96-482, Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of1979. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tocollect, maintain, and disseminate information onenergy and materials conservation and recovery fromsolid waste.

SOURCE: R.L. Chartrand Congressional Research Service, 1988

There is a history of congressional actionsto institutionalize information disseminationfunctions, as illustrated by the establishmentof the Library of Congress in 1800, the Fed-eral Depository Library Program in 1813, theLibrary of the Surgeon General’s office in 1836(later to become the National Library of Medi-cine [NLM]), the GPO in 1860, National Agri-cultural Library (NAL) in 1862, and NTIS in1970. In addition, Congress has articulated theimportance of access to and dissemination ofpublic information in enacting, for example,the Printing Act of 1895 (remodified in 1968as Part of Title 44 of the U.S. Code), Deposi-tory Library Act of 1962, Freedom of Infor-mation Act of 1966, Public Law 91-345 estab-lishing the National Commission on Libraries

Public Laws (relevant provisions in capsule term)—.97th CongressP.L. 97-88, Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Act of 1982, Department of the Interior (DOI) toprepare and disseminate information on recreationaluses of reservoir areas and archeological remains i nsuch areas.

P.L. 97-98, Agriculture and Food Act, U.S. Department ofAgriculture to develop an agricultural land resourcesinformation system and to establish relations withforeign agricultural information systems.

P.L. 97-290, Export Trading Company Act of 1982, Dept.of Commerce to disseminate information on exporttrading.

P.L. 97-292, Missing Children Act, Attorney General toacquire and exchange information to help identify andlocate certain deceased individuals and missingchiIdren.

98th CongressP.L. 98-24, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983,

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) todisseminate information regarding health hazards ofalcohol and drug abuse.

P.L. 98-362, Small Business Computer Crime PreventionAct, SBA to establish an information resource centeron computer crime.

P.L. 98-373, Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1982, toestablish data collection and retrieval center for arcticresearch and to promulgate guidelines for use anddissemination of such information.

99th CongressP.L. 99-412, Conservation Service Reform Act of 1985,

DOE to disseminate information annually to statesand public utilities on residential energy conservation.

P.L. 99-570, National Antidrug Reorganization and Coordi-nation Act, HHS to establish a clearinghouse foralcohol and drug abuse information.—.—.—— — .

and Information Science in 1970, Federal Pro-gram Information Act (P.L. 95-220, creatinga database on Federal domestic assistance pro-grams), and Paperwork Reduction Act in 1980(codified as part of Title 44).

Thus, taken as a whole, congressional intentwith respect to Federal information is clear. Ingeneral, unimpeded dissemination of and accessto Federal information is encouraged or fre-quently required and is vital to performance ofagency and programmatic missions establishedby statute as well as to the principles of opengovernment and a democratic society.

Despite the breadth and depth of legislatedcongressional commitment to Federal informa-tion dissemination and the overriding goal of

260

Table 11-2.—lllustrative OTA Report Excerpts Relevant to Information Dissemination

Starpower: The U.S. and International Quest for Fusion (October 1987)Effective exchange of information on research in progress, technical know-how, experimental data, and the like would minimizeunnecessary duplication of effort and increase the probabilities of scientific or technical breakthroughs.

Technologies for the Preservation of Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes (July 1987)A national computerized database of identified historic landscapes would help increase awareness, management, and con-servation of historic landscapes and facilitate identification of as yet uncatalogued landscapes.

Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier (July 1987)Better coordinated policy on archiving and disseminating oceanographic data and upgrading of oceanographic data centerswould help make such data more readily available to a wide range of potential users.

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity (March 1987)The quality of data on biological diversity is uneven for different parts of the world, due in part to data being collectedfor different purposes, stored in different forms, and scattered among different institutions. An information clearinghousewith integrated databases on biological diversity would enhance access to and use of the data and reduce duplication of effort.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials (July 1986)Lack of adequate information about transport of hazardous materials is one key factor contributing to accidents and theresultant injuries and environmental damage. Federal, State, and local governments need improved information systemsto help set regulations, reduce high-risk accident potential, target enforcement efforts, and plan for effective emergencyresponse when accidents do occur.

Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education (February 1986)The sharing of information on animal-based research and testing is vital to scientific progress. A computer-based registryof research and testing would help decrease the use of animals by reducing unintentional duplication of effort, facilitatenew kinds of data analyses, and save time and money.

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

public access, major policy issues have devel-oped in several different areas. This is espe-cially true with respect to the use of electronicinformation technologies.

Based on the results of commissioned re-search, surveys, and various outreach activi-ties conducted as part of this assessment, sig-nificant segments of the interested publicdesire access to Federal information in elec-tronic formats where it is appropriate, useful,and cost-effective. The results of the GAO sur-vey of Federal information users, as detailedin chapter 4, confirm this desire. Overall, thelibrary, research, media, public interest, con-sumer, business, State/local government, andphysically handicapped communities, amongothers, support the principle of public accessto Federal information regardless of formats.

However, many of these groups believe thatFederal information users are increasingly dis-advantaged to the extent Federal informationin electronic form is not available through thenormal governmentwide dissemination chan-nels and/or that there are significant barriers

to access to Federal electronic information.They argue that the Federal Government hasa responsibility to assure equity of access toFederal information in electronic formats aswell as in paper, to the degree that electronicformats offer significant cost or usefulness ad-vantages.

Consumer, library, and public interest groupsalso have expressed concern about the declinein availability of and increase in user chargesfor Federal information products and services.Both the number of total and the number offree Federal publications appears to have de-clined over the past decade, and many agen-cies have adopted some form of marginal costrecovery as the basis for pricing agency pub-lications and other information products orservices.

Congress may wish to consider making a re-newed commitment to the overriding goal of pub-lic access and perhaps even a reaffirmation ofprinciples established by Congress in previousstatutes but updated to reflect the increasinglyelectronic nature of Federal information.

261

CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTWIDEINFORMATION DISSEMINATION POLICY

Over the last decade implementation of theoverall goal of public access to Federal infor-mation has been complicated by several some-times competing public policy goals with respectto cost-effectiveness of Federal informationactivities. These include a desire to:

• minimize unnecessary overlap and dupli-cation in Federal information activities;

. reduce unnecessary or wasteful Federal in-formation activities; and

● optimize or (in the opinion of some stake-

Table 11-3.—Selected Legislation Introduced in the100th Congress Relevant to Information Dissemination

Bill Number — Title and/or description

H.R. 393/S. 1354 . . . National—Biotechnology InformationAct of 1987 to establish the NationalCenter for Biotechnology Informationwith i n the National Library ofMedicine.

H.J. Res. 370 . . . . . . . Directs the Secretary of Transportationto develop airline safety indicators andprovide such information to the public.

H.R. 1/S.1 . . . . . .Water Quality Act of 1987 directs EPA

H.R. 407 . . . . . . . . . .

to fund a National Clearinghouse onSmall Flows (of sewage). and to collectand disseminate research and other in-formation on the environmental quali-ty of the Chesapeake Bay.

National Home Health ClearinghouseAct of 1987 to establish a clearing-house to collect and disseminate infor-mation on home health care for theelderly.

H.R. 2800 . . . . . . Directs EPA to collect and disseminateinformation on reduction of toxic chem-ical emissions.

S. 1429 . . . . . . . . . . . Directs EPA to establish a clearing-house on waste reduction.

S. 744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directs EPA to develop and implementan information clearinghouse and na-tional database on the location andamounts of radon.

H.R. 1407 . . . . . . . . . . Directs the Secretary of Trade (createdin this bill) to develop and maintain asystem to collect and disseminate in-formation on international trade.

SOURCE: R.L. Chartrand and E. Baldwin, Congressional Research Service, 1988.

holders) maximize the role of the privatesector.

The goal of public access is complicated by thelack of clear congressional guidance on the useof electronic, v. paper formats in Federal in-formation dissemination activities, and howgoals of public access and cost-effectivenessare to be reconciled. OMB has promulgatedits own view of appropriate public policy, butthe OMB view is controversial and, as dis-cussed below, not necessarily consistent withat least what can be reasonably inferred froma variety of congressional actions. However,absent a clear and positive congressional clarifi-cation, probably in statutory form, conflict andconfusion are likely to continue.

Cost-Effectiveness

Both the legislative and executive branchesof government have expressed concern aboutwhether electronic information technologiesare being deployed by the Federal Governmentin a cost-effective manner. There are severalsubelements to this issue. One is simply the needto minimize overlap and duplication in tech-nology-based Federal information activitiesthrough effective management and coordina-tion. The Paperwork Reduction of Act of 1980was directed in large part at this problem, andrequired that OMB, through OIRA and themajor executive agencies, implement an in-tegrated approach to planning for and man-aging information resources. This has becomeknown as the Information Resources Manage-ment (IRM) concept, and all major agencieshave since designated ‘senior IRM officials. ”While the legislative history of the PaperworkReduction Act indicates that information dis-semination was intended to be covered, the lan-guage of the act as originally enacted was am-biguous. However, 1986 amendments to thePaperwork Reduction Act explicitly included

262

‘‘information dissemination in the statutorylanguage.2

One purpose of the amended Paperwork Re-duction Act is, “to maximize the usefulnessof information collected, maintained, and dis-seminated by the Federal Government.” Andthe authority and functions of the OIRA Di-rector and of Federal agencies extend to ‘shar-ing and dissemination of information.”3

A second aspect of concern about cost-effec-tiveness involves reducing unnecessary orwasteful Federal information activities. ThePaperwork Reduction Act is clear in its intentthat the government information collectionburden on the public be reduced, reflecting thepresumption that government information col-lection activities were, at least at that time,uncoordinated and included a significant por-tion of unnecessary collection requests. TheAct is silent on reduction of information dis-semination activities. Also, the Deficit Reduc-tion Act of 1984 called for reductions in cer-tain Federal publishing, public affairs, andaudio-visual activities. Some cuts were madein response to the Act and as part of OMB’sgeneral initiative to reduce fraud, waste, andabuse. OMB claimed that about 4,000 govern-ment publications were eliminated or consoli-dated by 1985 and that more than 100 agencyprinting/duplicating plants had been elimi-nated or consolidated (out of about 850 agencyplants operating in the continental UnitedStates and another 200 overseas).4 GPO hadprovided OMB with recommendations for theconsolidation, downgrading, or closure of 250of these plants, of which 70 were ultimatelyclosed. OMB concluded in 1985 that any fur-ther significant reductions in publishing andrelated activities would compromise essentialagency missions.5

‘U.S. Congress, Continuing Appropriations Resolution forFiscal 1987, Title VIII, “Paperwork Reduction Reauthoriza-tion, ” Sec. 811 which amends 44 U.S.C. 3501(3), 99th Congress,2nd sess., pp. 350, 351, 353.

‘IbidWffice of Management and Budget, Management of the

United States Government, Fiscal Year 1986, January 1985,and OMB, Managing Federal Information Resources, June 1984.

“I bid., Management.

Neither the Paperwork Reduction Act northe Deficit Reduction Act explicitly mentionreductions in electronic information dissemi-nation activities. Current OMB officials con-cur that the Paperwork Reduction Act doesnot provide guidance on electronic (or any) in-formation dissemination. Indeed, according toDr. Timothy Sprehe of OMB:6

While the Paperwork Reduction Act in sev-eral places uses the term “dissemination,” nei-ther in that act nor elsewhere has Congressgiven the executive branch a single compre-hensive set of statutory directions regardingresponsibilities of all Federal agencies for ac-tively disseminating Government information.Put another way, the Paperwork ReductionAct provides fairly explicit statutory policyregarding information input to Government—controlling the collection of information andimposition of record-keeping requirements—but says little regarding information outputfrom Government.

The act and its legislative history do articu-late congressional intent to maximize publicaccess to government information. For exam-ple, the original purpose of the act was, amongother things, “to maximize the usefulness ofinformation collected by the Federal Govern-ment (and extended to specifically include in-formation maintained and disseminated, perthe 1986 amendments as noted earlier)’. TheSenate report accompanying the original actstated that “the Committee expects the Di-rector [of the Office of Information and Regu-latory Affairs] to take appropriate steps tomaximize public access to the information theFederal Government collects.”8 Also, theFederal Information Locater System, whichthe original act required OMB to establish, wasintended to help serve this purpose.9 The1986 amendments further strengthened thisstatutory requirement. However, it is correctthat the act does not provide the kind of de-

“J. Timothy Sprehe, “Developing Federal Information Re-sources Management Polity: Issues and Impact for Informa-tion Managers, ” Information Management Review, vol. 2, No.3, 1987, p. 37; see generally pp. 33-41.

744 U.s.c. 3501 (3).‘S. Rep. No. 96-930, p. 3.’44 U.S.C. 3501 (2) B and (D).

tailed guidance on information disseminationthat was provided on information collection.

A third part of the concern about cost-effec-tiveness involves the role of the private sec-tor. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,OMB has promulgated Circular A-130 on “Man-agement of Federal Information Resources.A-130 emphasizes the role of the private sec-tor in information dissemination activities. Thehistory of A-130 is informative. The draft cir-cular, formulated after a public input process,strongly emphasized reliance on the privatesector and user charges. For example, the draftcircular recognized that government informa-tion dissemination could be necessary and evenessential to agency missions. But the draftcircular would have permitted such dissemi-nation by the government only if the informa-tion product or service was not already pro-vided by other government or private sectororganizations or could reasonably be providedby such organizations in the absence of agencydissemination.10 Moreover, while the draftcircular noted that dissemination should beconducted ‘in a manner that reasonably ensuresthe information will reach . . . the public , . .,”the draft circular required that ‘maximum fea-sible reliance’ be placed on the private sectorfor dissemination and that the costs of dissem-ination be recovered through user charges,where appropriate.11

The draft circular proved to be controver-sial, and numerous objections were received.The final version of the circular, issued byOMB in December 1985, gives more explicitrecognition to the importance of governmentinformation. For example, the circular statesthat “government information is a valuablenational resource, and ‘‘[t]he free flow of in-formation from the government to its citizensand vice versa is essential in a democratic so-

‘(’Office of hlanagement and Budget, “Itlanagement of Fed-eral Information Resources, ” Federal Register, vol. 50, No. 51,Mar. 15, 1985, Sec. H(a)~.

11 Ibid., See, ~(a~(g), For furth[~r discussion, SW? Harold ~

Relyea, Jane Bortnick, and Richard C. E]hlke. Ifanagement ofFederd information Resources:.4 (kneral Critique of the March1985 OMB Draft Circular—,llat ters for Possible CongressionalConsideration, Congressional Research Service, I.ibrary of Con-gress, July 5, 1985.

263

ciety . . . "12 The circular still emphasizes therole of the private sector. Federal agency dis-semination must be either “specifically re-quired by law’ or “[n]eccessary for the properperformance of agency functions, ’ providedthat the information products and services dis-seminated “do not duplicate similar productsor services that are or would otherwise be pro-vided by other government or private sectororganizations."13 The circular requires that‘‘maximum feasible reliance’ be placed on theprivate sector for dissemination, and that costsbe recovered through user charges, whereappropriate.14

The statutory authority for the informationdissemination provisions of OMB circularA-130 appears to be unclear. While much ofthe circular clearly is responsive to the Paper-work Reduction Act, the act does not specifi-cally speak to the role of the private sector oruser charges in Federal information dissemi-nation. While the act does assert the need tominimize the cost to the government of col-lecting, using, and disseminating information,the act does not address how this need shouldbe met.

The cost recovery provision of OMB Circu-lar A-130 was and is controversial, and iswidely interpreted by agencies as strongly en-couraging, if not requiring, user charges forinformation dissemination. However, a care-ful reading of A-130 indicates that:

●

●

●

●

the decisions on pricing are left up to thediscretion of agency heads;the user charge where applied should beset to recover the cost of information re-production or dissemination only and notthe cost of collecting or creating the in-formation;user charges should take into account boththe nature of the agency mission and cli-ent groups; anduser charges can be waived or eliminatedif necessary to carry out mission objectives.

1-Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-130,"Management of Federal Information Resources, ” Dec. 12, 1985,Secs. 7(a) and (b).

‘I bid., Sees. 9(a) and (hi.‘‘ Ibi[i,, Sees. 11 (b) and (c).

264

In effect, OMB policy on user charges permitsthe individual Federal agencies considerablelatitude as to pricing of Federal informationdissemination regardless of format. In promul-gating A-130, OMB applied the philosophy ofOMB circular A-25 regarding user charges forgovernment goods and services in general toinformation dissemination in particular. (Notethat OMB has issued a draft revision to A-25.)Similarly, OMB applied the philosophy ofOMB circular A-76 regarding contracting outof commercially available services in generalto information dissemination in particular.15

The private sector already has a major rolein Federal information dissemination. A keyissue is how this role relates to the governmentgoal of access broadly defined. ’G The privatesector traditionally has a major role as con-tractor to the government for a wide range ofservices, some of which are information related.Both the Printing Act (P.L. 90-620) and theBrooks Act (P.L 89-306), and their implement-ing guidelines, facilitate contracting out of Fed-eral printing and computer-related activities.Private sector printing contracts through theGPO are averaging about $600 million annu-ally, and private sector information technol-ogy contracts through GSA and the line agen-

‘%prehe, footnote 6, op. cit., pp. 38-39; and Office of Man-agement and Budget, “Draft Revision of OMB Circular A-25on User Charges, ” Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 126, July 1,1987, pp. 24890-24892.

IGThere have been numerous prior studies on this &neraltopic. See, for example, U.S. National Commission on Librariesand Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Inter-action in Providing Information Services, February 1982; U.S.Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on GovernmentOperations, Subcommittee on Government Information and In-dividual Rights, Government Provision of Information Serv-ices in Competition With the Private Sector, 97th Congress.,1st Sess., Feb. 25, 1982; U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, MEDLARS and Health Information Policy, OTA-TM-H-1 1, U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, September 1982; U.S.Library of Congress, Network Development Office, Public/Pri-vate Sector Interactions: The Implications for Networking,prepared by the Network Advisory Committee, 1983; U.S. Na-tional Commission on Libraries and Information Science, In-formation Policy Implications of Archiving Satellite Data: ToPreserve the Sense of Earth from Space, Washington, DC, 1984;U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remote Sens-ing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion, OTA-TM-ISC-20, U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, March 1984; and PeterHernon and Charles R. McClure, Federal Information Policiesin the 1980‘s: Conflicts and Issues, Ablex Publishing, Norwood,N. J., 1987.

cies are averaging, conservatively, $8 billionannually (for hardware, software, and services).

Over the past 5 years, an estimated $3 bil-lion in printing contracts and $40 billion ininformation technology contracts have beenawarded to the private sector. Much of the in-formation technology contracting is for thegeneral information infrastructure of the Fed-eral Government. The fraction devoted directlyor indirectly to information disseminationfunctions is not known, since the OMB andagency IRM budgets and plans do not collector provide financial data by type of applica-tion. The 114 civilian departmental agencycomponents responding to the GAO survey re-ported collectively an average of $1.1 billionannually for fiscal year 1983 through fiscalyear 1987 in private sector contracting for in-formation clearinghouse operations. The ex-tent of overlap between this figure and theIRM figures is unknown. Recent automationprograms for information dissemination-relatedactivities at agencies such as the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC) and Patent andTrademark Office (PTO) have included privatesector contracting in the range of tens to hun-dreds of millions of dollars per agency. In addi-tion to its role as a government contractor, theprivate sector is a major user and reseller ofFederal information, as will be discussed laterin this chapter.

Electronic v. Paper Formats

The second major issue cluster involves theapplicability of the existing statutory frame-work and implementing directives to electronicas opposed to paper forms of information dis-semination. As noted earlier, the PaperworkReduction Act provides little substantive guid-ance on electronic information dissemination.Unfortunately, the two other critically impor-tant statutes, the Printing Act and Freedomof Information Act, were enacted in 1895 and1966 respectively, and both predated the eraof widespread electronic information exchange.Neither has been updated to reflect electronicformats; as a result, there is considerable con-troversy about their applicability to electronic

formats. Much of the debate turns on such nar-row questions as whether terms such as “print-ing,” “publication, “ “record,” and “document”are to be interpreted as limited to paper for-mats or to include relevant Federal informa-tion regardless of format.

Today, most Federal agencies are operatingin a partial policy vacuum when it comes toelectronic information dissemination. In addi-tion to the confusion and controversy overgovernmentwide statutory application, the re-sults of the GAO survey indicate that themajority of agencies do not have documentedpolicies or procedures on providing public ac-cess to electronic databases, on the electronicdissemination of information by agency con-tractors, or on the applicability of FOIA topublic information in electronic formats. Theresults are highlighted in Table 11-4 for 114civilian departmental agency components and48 independent civilian agencies.

The absence of explicit, governmentwide pol-icy on electronic information dissemination isrecognized by key legislative and executivebranch officials. As early as the late 1970s, theJCP recognized the need to review and possi-bly update the Printing Act with respect toelectronic printing and dissemination. In 1979,the JCP issued a comprehensive overview ofa wide range of relevant issues.17 In the early1980s, the JCP initiated a revision of the Gov-ernment Printing and Binding Regulations todeal in part with technological change.18 Whilethe revision effort did not come to fruition, theJCP did issue a requirement in 1985 that agen-cies submit to the JCP comprehensive print-

ITU.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Federal Gov-ernment Printing and Publishing: Policy Issues, Report of theAd Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44, U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979. Also see U.S.Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, The Printing Procure-ment Program of the Federal Government, Report of the TaskForce on the Printing Procurement Program, 99th Congress,1st sess., Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office,1986.

1“Memorandum to Heads of All Federal Departments andAgencies from Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins, Chairman, JointCommittee on Printing, U.S. Congress, June 20, 1983; Also seeU.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, “Revisions toPrinting and Binding Regulations of the Joint Committee onPrinting, ” 130 Congressional Record, P. H7075 ff., June 26,1984.

Table 11-4.-Federal Agency Policies onElectronic Information Dissemination

Percent of agencies havingdocumented policies

and procedures

Policy area Departmental a Independent b

Public access to agencyelectronic databases

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10,4no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 89.6

Electronic dissemination byagency contractors

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 6.3no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.0 41.7do not use contractors . . . . 49,1 52.1

Applicability of FOIA toelectronic formats

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 25,0no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 75.0—a Departmental civilian agency components

b lndependent civilian agency components.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

ing program plans that included new technol-ogy.” Also during this time period, the JCPactively explored the provision of electronicformats to the depository libraries, and issuedtwo reports on this topic.20

In 1986, the Senate Committee on Govern-mental Affairs introduced legislation to amendthe Paperwork Reduction Act to provide muchclearer guidance on information dissemina-tion.21 A-few of the relevant provisions wereincorporated in the Paperwork Reduction ActAmendments enacted by Congress at the closeof the 99th Congress. Also, in 1986, the HouseCommittee on Government Operations issueda comprehensive report and policy overviewof issues pertaining to electronic collection anddissemination of Federal information.22 The

19 Memorandum t. Heads of All Federal Departments andAgencies from Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Chairman, JointCommittee on Printing, U.S. Congress, Sept. 23, 1985.

20 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Provision ofFederal Government Publications in Electronic Format to De-pository Libraries, 98th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Wash-ington, D. C., 1984, and An Open Forum on the Provision ofElectronic Federal Information to Depository Libraries, 99thCongress, 1st sess., U.S. GPO, 1985.

“U.S. Congress, Senate, S. 2230, “Federal Management Re-organization and Cost Control Act of 1986, ” Mar. 26, 1986, andespecially Title VI on Federal Information Policy.

22 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Opera-tions, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, andAgriculture, Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Infor-

(continued on next page/

266

report was prepared by the Subcommittee onGovernment Information, Justice, and Agri-culture based in part on hearings that exploredearly agency initiatives in electronic dissemi-nation. Subsequently, the House Committeeson Government Operations, Energy and Com-merce, and the Judiciary have collaborated onstatutory language to address issues raised bySEC and PTO automation plans that affect ac-cess to and dissemination of agency informa-tion. In 1987, the JCP passed resolutions au-thorizing and encouraging the GPO to offerelectronic formats and services and to conductappropriate pilot tests. A few agencies, suchas the Department of Commerce (DOC), haveinitiated internal task forces to address elec-tronic dissemination policy issues. (The DOCtask force recently issued a draft policy on elec-tronic dissemination.)

Also, in 1987, OMB issued Bulletin No. 87-14 which directed all executive departmentsand agencies to inventory their informationdissemination products and services, and re-port the results to OMB.23 This bulletin es-sentially revises OMB Bulletin 86-11 on gov-ernment publications to include electronicformats, such as machine-readable data files(e.g., magnetic tapes, floppy disks, software,online electronic databases, and electronicbulletin boards). In addition to activity reports,agencies are directed to establish and main-tain electronic inventories of all informationdissemination products and services, and tomake these inventories available to the pub-lic. Agencies may provide these inventorieseither directly, as long as there is no duplica-tion with other agency or private sector offer-ings, or indirectly through other agencies or(continued from previous page)mation by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview, House Report99-560, 99th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Washington, DC,Apr. 29, 1986. Also see U.S. Congress, House, Committee onGovernment Operations, Subcommittee on Government Infor-mation and Individual Rights, Government Provision of Infor-mation Services in Competition With the Private Sector, Hear-ing, 97th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Washington, D. C., Feb.25, 1982: and Rep. Glenn English, “Electronic Filing of Docu-ments With the Government: New Technology Presents NewProblems, ” Congressional Record–House, Mar. 14, 1984, H1614-1615.

‘)Office of Management and Budget, “Report and Inventoryof Government Information Dissemination Products and Serv-ices”, OMB Bulletin No. 87-14, June 8, 1987.

private sector entities. The agency responsesto this bulletin have not yet been released byOMB. OMB has issued:24

●

●

a draft policy on electronic informationcollection or filing, which is relevant sinceelectronic collection and dissemination canbe part of the same system; anda draft policy on Federal statistical activ-ities, which states that agencies are ex-pected to conform to A-130 with respectto dissemination of statistical information.

Another example of ambiguity and contro-versy about statutory applicability concernsthe Depository Library Act of 1962. Both thisact and the related Printing Act of 1895 pre-date electronic dissemination and use conven-tional paper-based terminology. The word‘‘electronic’ does not appear in these acts.However, the legislative history of the Depos-itory Library Act of 1962 can be interpretedto suggest that congressional intent was in-clusive with respect to government informa-tion (see chs. 6 and 7 for further discussion).While the primary formats available at thetime of enactment were traditional paper-basedreports, publications, and documents, histori-cal debate suggests that new formats could andshould be accommodated. Indeed, microficheis now a well established part of the deposi-tory program. Moreover the JCP, as notedearlier, has instructed the GPO (and, by ex-tension, the depository program run by GPO)to include electronic formats. OMB, in circu-lar A-130, directed agencies to provide all pub-lications to depository libraries via GPO, butexplicitly used the definition of ‘publication(informational matter published as an individ-ual document) found in the 44 USC 1901 ratherthan the broader term “information” (infor-mational matter in any medium, includingcomputerized databases, microform, or mag-netic tape, as well as paper) used elsewhere in

“Office of Management and Budget, “Notice of Policy Guid-ance on Electronic Collection of Information, Aug. 7, 1987,printed in Federal Register, vol. 52, pp. 29454-29457; 0MB,“Summary of Comments on Notice of Policy Guidance on Elec-tronic Collection of Information, ” Nov. 17, 1987: OMB, “No-tice of Draft Circular Establishing Guidelines for Federal Sta-tistical Activities, ” Federal Register vol. 53, No. 12, Jan. 20,1988, pp. 1542-1552.

267

A-130. Also, in Bulletin 87-14, OMB excludedelectronic formats from the agency reportingrequirements for materials provided to the de-pository library program.

In sum, OMB appears to have reservationsor at least be quite uncertain about whetherand to what extent electronic formats shouldbe included in the depository library program.In sharp contrast, the chairman of the JCP hasstated that:25

When a Federal agency publishes Govern-ment information in electronic format for massor general distribution, whether as a comple-ment to or as a substitute for conventionallyprinted material, the GPO should and mustcontinue to provide its full range of servicesand support in the production, distribution,and sale of such publications. This, of course,includes the distribution of such electronic Gov-ernment publications to depository libraries.

One final example of ambiguity over statu-tory applicability to electronic formats involvesthe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Enact-ment of FOIA in 1966 shifted the burden ofproof from the public to Federal agencies whenquestions of access to Federal information arein dispute. The act served to establish fullagency disclosure as the operating principle,unless information was in one of the catego-ries (e.g., classified, proprietary) specificallyexempted. The advent of electronic informa-tion technology largely postdated the act and,as a result, numerous issues have arisen in theagencies and the courts. For example, what isa‘ ‘reasonable’ search for the desired informa-tion when the information is in electronic formand the search can be conducted in a computer-assisted fashion? What is the definition of anagency ‘‘record’ when a record could be in amachine-readable format such as a database,floppy disk, or optical disk? If computer soft-ware is needed to access electronic agency in-formation effectively, does or should the soft-ware be defined as an integral part of theagency record and of a reasonable search? Doesa legal agency record exist when the record has

25 Letter from Honorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, JointCommittee on Printing. to Honorable Ralph E. Kennickell, ,Jr.,Public Pinter, Mar. 25, 1988.

never been (and may never be) in hardcopy pa-per format? These and other questions presenta growing challenge to the interpretation ofFOIA in an increasingly electronic environ-ment. In many areas, the FOIA case law onelectronic formats is limited, ambiguous, orcontradictory, and the courts have suggestedthe need for legislative remedies (see ch. 9).

Possible Congressional Actions

If Congress wishes to preserve and strengthenthe principle of public access to Federal infor-mation, a number of possible actions warrantconsideration. These range from amending spe-cific statutes with respect to electronic for-mats, to articulating an overall statement ofcongressional intent.

For example, if Congress wishes to maintainthe integrity of FOIA for electronic as well astraditional paper formats, the option of amend-ing the statute deserves serious considerationand, indeed, may well be essential. Various spe-cific electronic FOIA issues that could be ad-dressed by amendments are discussed in somedetail in chapter 9.

Similarly, if it is, congressional intent thatthe DLP should include Federal informationin all formats, then Congress may need toamend appropriate statutes to eliminate thecurrent ambiguity and controversy. Variousspecific depository library issues that could beaddressed are discussed in detail in chapter 7.

Another congressional action that warrantsserious consideration is the promulgation ofcongressional views, perhaps in statutoryform, on the information dissemination prin-ciples addressed in OMB’s Circular A-130. Themost important contribution could be to estab-lish a clearer sense of congressional prioritywith respect to public access and cost-effec-tiveness goals. A central question is—whichcomes first, if choices must be made. For ex-ample, one possible interpretation of congres-sional intent regarding Federal informationdissemination is to give highest priority tounimpeded and open dissemination in order torealize the overriding policy goal of public ac-

268

cess. This could be achieved as cost-effectivelyas possible without compromising public ac-cess, and utilizing the private sector whereappropriate as one means to achieve theseends. This interpretation is philosophicallysomewhat different from that reflected in OMBCircular A-130, and also from OMB CircularA-76 which requires contracting out of com-mercially available services when cost-effectiveto the government. Note that the applicabil-ity of A-76 to arguably inherent governmentalfunctions such as information dissemination,and the cost-effectiveness of private contract-ing of such functions, are also in dispute. Thesetopics are considered below and in chapter 12under the discussion of possible privatizationof NTIS or GPO. Given the potentially con-flicting interpretations of congressional intent,congressional clarification or reaffirmation ap-pears warranted, possibly through amendmentof relevant statues such as the Printing Actor Paperwork Reduction Act.

Congress may need to clarify its intent aboutwhether and under what conditions privatizingFederal information dissemination functionsis appropriate given the vital governmental na-ture of many dissemination activities, andwhether and under what conditions privatiz-ing is cost-effective.

OMB Circular A-76 on “Performance of Com-mercial Activities” (August 4, 1983) statesthat the “Federal Government shall rely oncommercially available sources to provide com-mercial products and services . . . if the prod-uct or service can be procured more economi-cally from a commercial source. . . [and is not]inherently governmental in nature. ” CircularA-76 defines a governmental function as “sointimately related to the public interest as tomandate performance by Government employ-ees” such as:

●

●

●

●

●

management of government programs re-quiring value judgments;selection of program priorities;direction of Federal employees;regulation of the use of space, oceans,navigable rivers, and other natural re-sources; andregulation of industry and commerce.

A-76 does not specifically address whether in-formation dissemination is a governmentalfunction in this sense. However, A-76 does listthe following information-related activities asbeing commercial not governmental in nature,along with numerous other activities illus-trated below:

Information-RelatedDistribution of audiovisual materialsLibrary operationsCatalogingPrinting and bindingReproduction, copying, and duplicationManagement information systems

OtherOperation of cafeteriasLaundry and dry cleaningArchitect and engineer servicesOperation of motor poolsWord processing/data entry/typingLaboratory testing services

A-76 does point out that whether or not these(or other commercial) activities serve inher-ently governmental functions and should beperformed by the government, there should beanalyses and decisions on a case-by-case basis.And the library community for example, amongothers, has challenged OMB’s assertion thatinformation-related activities such as libraryoperations are essentially commercial innature.26

OMB Circular A-130 on “Management ofFederal Information Resources, on the otherhand, asserts that policies contained in A-76are applicable to information dissemination.The OMB policy is, in general, reliance on theprivate sector for information disseminationwhen cost effective and when not an inherentlygovernmental function. Although not explicitlystated, the OMB drafters of A-130 apparentlyintended to draw a distinction

. . . between the issues of whether the govern-ment should offer an information product orservice and how the product or service shouldbe offered. The first question is whether the

26 Letter to Honorable David S. Linowes, Chairman, Presi-

dent’s Commission on Privatization, from James P. Riley, Ex-ecutive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Com-mittee, Jan. 29, 1988.

269—

government should undertake an informationactivity at all, or leave it to the private sector.Answering this question appears to be an in-herently governmental function. However,once it has been determined that the govern-ment has a proper role, the second questionof how to carry out the role arises. Here it isappropriate to inquire whether the activitiesinvolved in carrying out the role are commer-cial, and hence might be accomplished throughgrant or contract.27

There are two problems with current OMBpolicy. First, there has not been a systematicanalysis of what information disseminationfunctions are inherently governmental. Ananalysis of NTIS and GPO privatization pro-posals (see ch. 12) suggests that many NTISand GPO dissemination functions are not suit-able for privatization. Many other agency in-formation dissemination functions arguablyare vital to agency performance of statutorymissions, and would thereby qualify as gov-ernmental. However, whether these functionsare inherently governmental and therefore notamenable or suitable for contracting out, asappears to be the case for many NTIS and GPOfunctions, has not been carefully examined.Second, there have not been credible analysesof whether and under what conditions the con-tracting out of Federal information dissemi-nation functions is cost-effective. Conductingsuch analyses is not easy.

Numerous GAO audits of agency contract-ing out activities have identified serious prob-lems that have the effect of overstating sav-ings to the government.28 In many instances,it is difficult to develop a fair initial compari-son between inhouse and contracted out costs.Secondly, contract costs frequently escalaterapidly after the initial contract award, for avariety of reasons. It is difficult to tell if infact contracting out ends up being less expen-sive than retaining the activity inhouse (netsavings), but it is clear that projected grosssavings often do not fully materialize. Otherconcerns expressed about contracting out,

‘TSprehe, “Federal Information, ” footnote 6, p. 39.‘“See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Synop-

sis of GAO Reports Involving Contracting Out Under OMBCircular A-76, GAO/PLRD-83-74, May 24, 1983.

especially in technology-intensive areas, arethe loss of governmental expertise necessaryto monitor contracts and set overall direction,and the potential for the government to becomedependent on the incumbent contractor.

As a matter of general philosophy, someOMB and information industry officials haveargued that while Federal agency electronicdissemination of raw data is acceptable, gov-ernment dissemination of so-called value-addedinformation products and services is not anappropriate governmental function and shouldbe the province of private industry. In thisview, dissemination by the Bureau of theCensus of statistical data on magnetic com-puter tapes would be appropriate, but dissem-ination of value-added or enhanced informa-tion—such as a CD-ROM with the data andsearch software for retrieving and manipulat-ing this data—would not. The major problemwith using value-added as a line of demarca-tion between governmental and private sectorroles is that many Federal agencies have man-dates (see Tables 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3) to de-velop and disseminate what amounts to value--added information and have been doing so foryears or decades. Providing value-added infor-mation is a well-established and, indeed, a man-dated function of government. Restricting theFederal Government from providing value--added information, or from providing such in-formation in electronic form (even if previouslyavailable in paper), would appear to substan-tially diminish the government’s role and erodethe ability of agencies to carry out numerousstatutory responsibilities.

At the same time, however, the concept ofmultiple levels of value-added may be viablewith the private sector frequently providingadditional levels of value or enhancement be-yond those provided by the government. Fed-eral agencies would continue to provide in-formation as they do today using electronicformats where appropriate and desired byusers, and employing private sector contrac-tors where cost-effective and/or necessary toprovide the desired quality or timeliness. Theprivate information industry would be able torepackage and resell any Federal information

270

products, and would be able to add furthervalue to create enhanced information productswhere the market exists, much as the indus-try does today. The only real difference is thatboth the governmental and private sector offer-ings would be moving to a higher and moresophisticated technological level. Congresscould address the value-added question in hear-ings, reports, oversight, and/or legislation.

In addition, Congress could establish guide-lines for the role of private sector contractorsin Federal information dissemination. For ex-ample, based on experience with agency auto-mation programs to date—particularly thoseof the SEC and PTO and other agencies citedin the 1986 House Committee on GovernmentOperations report29— with respect to agencycontracting out of information disseminationactivities, at least six basic principles haveemerged from the congressional debate. Briefly,these are that agency contracting out of infor-mation dissemination activities should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

not impede or erode vital governmentalfunctions;maintain or strengthen public access toagency information;be more cost-effective compared to gov-ernmental performance;maintain open and competitive procure-ments for private vendors (e.g., contrac-tors would have no exclusive rights to de-velop value-added products);preclude monopoly control by contractorsover agency information dissemination;andpreclude cross subsidies between contrac-tor services and agency operations.

Also, Congress could establish guidelines onthe role of Federal agencies in information dis-

“’See, for example, U.S. Congress, House, H.R. 2600, “Secu-rities and Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1987,100th Congress, 1st sess., June 4, 1987; U.S. Congress, House,Committee on Energy and Commerce, Securities and ExchangeCommission Authorization Act, Report to accompany H.R.2600, 100th Congress, 1st sess., Rep. No. 100-296, Sept. 9, 1987;Also see U.S. Congress, Committee on Government Operations,Electronic Collection and Dissemination, footnote 22.

semination and especially electronic dissemi-nation. Again, at least six basic principles haveemerged from the congressional debate to date.These are that agency electronic disseminationactivities should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

strengthen public access to agency infor-mation;improve the cost-effectiveness of agencyinformation dissemination;encourage a diversity of mechanisms foragency information dissemination andpreclude copyright-like or monopoly con-trols over Federal information;include information sources, users, and po-tential contractors in the planning of in-formation dissemination systems, prod-ucts, and services;limit user fees to no more than the mar-ginal cost of information dissemination,and preclude fees that compromise agencystatutory missions; andminimize competition with the private sec-tor and encourage the private sector, solong as public access to agency informa-tion is assured and agency statutory mis-sion requirements are met, to provide ad-ditional value-added services and products(beyond the value of those offered by theagency).

These or similar principles could be enactedinto law as amendments to the Paperwork Re-duction Act, the Printing Act, or other appro-priate statutes. The urgency for such actionis heightened as individual agencies promul-gate their own policies and initiate activitiesthat may not be consistent with the above 12principles.

Also, Congress could clarify the roles andresponsibilities of the governmentwide infor-mation dissemination institutions and/or man-date a variety of specific improvements in themanagement of conventional as well as elec-tronic information dissemination. These arediscussed later in this chapter and in chapter12.

271-

CLARIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ROLESAND RESPONSIBILITIES

Another major issue cluster that warrantscongressional attention and action involves in-stitutional responsibilities for Federal infor-mation dissemination. The focal points for cur-rent debate are the GPO (and related functionsof the JCP), NTIS, and the proposals for reor-ganization of the Federal Government infor-mation dissemination institutions and over-sight. These are discussed briefly below in turn.(The role of the DLP in electronic informationdissemination, mentioned earlier, can also beviewed as an institutional issue. See chs. 6 and7 of this report for discussion.)

GPO. The Printing Act of 1895 (remodifiedin 1968 by P.L. 90-620) requires that all Fed-eral printing (with the exception of the Su-preme Court) be done by or through GPO, ex-cept where the JCP has approved field printingplants or printing procurement by specificagencies. Three specific policy issues havearisen. One is whether the act extends to elec-tronic dissemination or, more broadly, to in-formation dissemination in general, regardlessof format. At present, OMB has taken the po-sition that electronic-based information dis-semination by executive agencies falls outsideof the act’s purview. As of August 1988, veryfew of the electronic dissemination productsof the executive agencies are produced by orthrough GPO or are provided to the GPO Su-perintendent of Documents for possible in-clusion in the sales program. A few agenciesparticipate on a voluntary basis in GPO’s mag-netic tape sales program, and a few are par-ticipating in pilot projects on electronic datatransfer and the like. Almost all Federal in-formation products and services in electronicformat are produced and disseminated by theindividual agencies themselves (or throughagency contractors). The JCP has directed (bya 1987 resolution and 1988 letter) that the GPOinclude electronic formats in the Sales Programand the DLP. However, OMB has taken the

position that while executive agencies may par-ticipate on a voluntary basis in G PO electronicactivities, GPO and JCP may not requireagency participation.

A second GPO institutional issue is whetherGPO (and JCP) procurement authority extendsto computer-based electronic printing technol-ogy, at least with respect to the executivebranch. Over the past 10 to 15 years, printingtechnology has incorporated significant elec-tronic and computer-based components, to thepoint where page layout and composition areheavily computerized. At GPO, about 70 per-cent of the input textual material is providedin electronic format. Increasingly, the print-ing process is becoming a largely electronicone, with material remaining in electronic formfrom initial keyboarding, through layout, com-position, and revision cycles, until a final ver-sion is ready for production. The productionformat can be, and frequently still is, paper,but it can also be microform, magnetic tape,diskette, and other nonpaper formats. Thus,the dividing line between traditional “ink onpaper” printing and electronic or computer-ized printing is no longer clear or, perhaps, evena valid or a feasible distinction.

A GPO procurement for electronic printingon behalf of the U.S. Army (the 600-S program)was terminated in part because of alleged con-tracting irregularities (that are outside thescope of this study), but, more importantly,because of possible conflict with the BrooksAct that governs executive agency procure-ment of automatic data processing, computers,and telecommunication-related equipment.GPO took the position that the 600-S procure-ment, like other GPO printing procurements,was exempted from the requirements of theBrooks Act as provided for in the LegislativeBranch Appropriations Act of 1977. The HouseCommittee on Government Operations tookthe position that the 600-S procurement in-

272

eluded a substantial amount of computer-related technology and, thus, should have beenprocured under the Brooks Act and GSA con-tracting procedures rather than the PrintingAct and GPO contracting procedures. Con-gress subsequently (in 1986) amended theBrooks Act to cover any agency procurementthat included significant ADP or related tech-nology or services. The revised statutory def-inition of automatic data processing is:

. . . any equipment or interconnected systemor subsystems of equipment that is used in theautomatic acquisition, storage, manipulation,management, movement, control, display,switching interchange, transmission, or recep-tion of data or information (1) by a Federalagency or (z) under contract with a Federalagency which (a) requires the use of such equip-ment or (b) requires the performance of a serv-ice or the furnishing of a product which is per-formed or produced making significant use ofsuch equipment.

The term equipment is defined to include “com-puters; ancillary equipment; software, firm-ware, and similar procedures; services, includ-ing support services; and related resources asdefined by regulations issued by the Admin-istrator for General Services.”30

GPO acknowledges that comprehensive elec-tronic publishing systems include significantamounts of both printing and computer tech-nologies, and that procurement of these so-called “mixed resource” systems requires closecooperation between GPO and GSA. The Pub-lic Printer has called for the development ofa GPO-GSA joint procurement program formajor electronic publishing systems that wouldsatisfy GPO’s obligations under the printingprovisions of Title 44 of the U.S. Code andGSA’s obligations under the Brooks Act.31

This may require involvement of the JCP, whichhas approval authority over GPO procurements,

30 U.S. Congress, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution forFiscal 1987, ” Title VIII—’’Paperwork Reduction Reauthoriza-tion,” Part B–Amendments to the Brooks Act, Sec. 822(a)Amending Section 11 l(a) of the Federal Property and Admin-istrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(a), p. 357.

31 Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer of the UnitedStates, testimony before the Subcommittee on LegislativeBranch Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Sen-ate, “GPO Appropriations Estimates for Fiscal Year 1989”,Mar. 10, 1988.

and the House Committee on GovernmentOperations, which has oversight authority overGSA and Brooks Act procurements, and pos-sibly other committees, with respect to majorprocurements on the scale of 600-S (severalhundred million dollars). The much smaller AirForce 50-S electronic publishing procurement($10 million over 3 years) was awarded by GPOin January 1988 without incident or controversyunder existing GPO contracting procedures.

This issue highlights the ambiguity aboutthe applicability of the Printing Act, BrooksAct, and Paperwork Reduction Act to agencyelectronic information dissemination systemsand those systems in particular in which areimbedded conventional printing functions.Since the major thrust of agency automationprograms (including automation of informa-tion collection and dissemination functions) istowards integrated systems, these statutoryambiguities and conflicting interpretations arelikely to be aggravated over time, thus pro-viding even more impetus for further congres-sional review and, perhaps of necessity, stat-utory adjustments.

The third GPO institutional issue is whetherthe statutory basis for GPO (and JCP) controlover executive branch printing activities isconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court 1983decision in INS v. Chadha struck down thelegislative veto as unconstitutional.32 This de-cision has been interpreted by the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice (DOJ) as invalidating provi-sions of the Printing Act that provide forcontrol over and prior approval of executivebranch printing by the JCP.33 (lNS v. Chadhawas also cited as part of the basis for DOJ op-position to JCP proposals for revising the Gov-ernment Printing and Binding Regulations in1983 and 1984.34) Based on this DOJ inter-

32 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983).33 Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice,

Memorandum for William H. Taft, IV, Deputy Secretary of De-fense, Re: “Effect of INS V. Chadha on 44 U.S.C. 501, PublicPrinting and Documents, ” Mar. 2, 1984.

‘~~office of Leg~ counsel, U.S. Department of J@@Memorandum for Michael J. Horowitz, Counsel to the OMBDirector, Re. “Constitutionality of Proposed Regulations ofJoint Committee on Printing Under Buckley V. Valeo and INSV. Chadha,” Apr. 11, 1984, and Re. “Government Printing, Bind-ing, and Distribution Policies and Guidances of the Joint Com-mittee on Printing, ’ Aug. 21, 1984.

273

pretation, the Federal Acquisition Regulations(FAR) were revised in 1987 and provided thatexecutive agencies need only give the JCP ad-vance notice of agency printing plans—notseek JCP approval. Further, agencies withtheir own printing plant or printing procure-ment capability would not be required to ob-tain their printing from or through GPO.35

The DOJ interpretation and FAR revisionswere disputed by the JCP and GPO.36 ThePublic Printer testified that the FAR revisionswould:

• be inconsistent with the legislative intentof Title 44;

● substantially increase the government’sprinting costs; and

● jeopardize the GPO sales and depositorylibrary programs.37

While the legal issues remain unresolved, Con-gress included a provision in the fiscal year1988 Continuing Appropriations Resolutionthat mooted the FAR revisions and was in-tended to maintain the status quo. This pro-vision is also included in the Legislative BranchAppropriation Bill for fiscal year 1989 (H.R.4587).38

NTIS. The major institutional issue concern-ing NTIS is the Administration’s proposal to

“’See Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 54, Mar. 20, 1987, pp.9036-9038.

“Letter to Terence C. Golden, Administrator, General Serv-ices Administration, Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of De-fense, and James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, from Se-nators Wendell Ford, Ted Stevens, Dennis De Comcini. AlbertGore, Jr., and Mark O. Hatfield and Representatives Frank An-nunzio, Joseph M. Gaydos, and Leon E. Panetta, June 5, 1987.Also see letter to Rep. Frank Annunzio, Chairman, Joint Com-mittee on Printing, from H. Lawrence Garrett. I I 1, GeneralCounsel, U.S. Department of Defense, June 15, 1987. For gen-eral background, see Morton Rosenberg, American Law Divi-sion, Congressional Research Service, Memoranda to the JointCommittee on Printing, “Effect of Legislative Veto Decisionon the Joint Committee on Printing and Possible CongressionalResponses, ” Apr. 16, 1985, and "Legal Propriety of Amend-ments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation Respecting theConduct of Field Printing Operations by Executive Agencies,May 21, 1987.

‘TKennickell, “Appropriations Estimates, ” footnote 31.‘“U.S. Congress, “ Continuing Appropriations Resolution for

Fiscal 1988, ” Sec. 309, 100th Congress, 1st sess., p. 324. Alsosee letter to Rep. Vic Fazio, Chairman, Subcommittee on [the]Legislative Branch, House Committee on Appropriations, fromOMB Director James C. Miller, Nov. 16, 1987. Also see U.S.Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, LegislativeBranch Appropriations Bill, 1989, Report No. 100-621, 100thCongress, 2d sess., May 12, 1988.

privatize the agency. In late 1985, the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) asked theDepartment of Commerce-to develop proposalsfor privatizing NTIS. While OMB did not ini-tiate a formal contracting out procedure, theinitial impetus for NTIS privatization can beviewed in part in the context of OMB Circu-lar A-76, which states that the “Federal Gov-ernment shall rely on commercially availablesources to provide commercial products andservices if the product or service can be pro-cured more economically from a commercialsource. ” As noted earlier, A-76 requires de-tailed cost comparisons and explicit determi-nation of inherently government-functions thatare not subject to contracting out. Based, inpart, on the results of Department of Commercestudies conducted in 1986, OMB decided in1987 to pursue a substitute contracting outprocedure for NTIS known as Fed Co-Op (dis-cussed later), rather than follow the formal A-76 process.

These proposals have become very contro-versial. The Administration has argued thatNTIS provides what is essentially a commer-cial service performed by the Government andthat it should be contracted out or otherwiseprivatized. The Administration has assertedthat privatizing NTIS would maximize relianceon and minimize competition with the privatesector, reduce the cost of government, and/orincrease the quality and effectiveness of NTISservices. Several private firms have expressedinterest in operating NTIS. The academic, re-search, and scientific communities, however,have argued, in general, that NTIS performsan important and inherently governmentalfunction that is not suitable for privatization,and that no cost savings or service improve-ments have been demonstrated to occur ifNTIS were to be privatized. The Federal sci-entific and technical agencies, the source ofNTIS information, have expressed concernsabout the the viability of NTIS if privatizedand whether U.S. and foreign governmentagencies would continue to cooperate with aprivatized NTIS.

As an agency of the U.S. Department ofCommerce, NTIS operates under the statutoryauthority of the Secretary to collect, exchange,

274

and disseminate scientific and technical infor-mation (Title 15, U.S. Code, Sections 1151-1157). At OMB direction, the Department ofCommerce has conducted numerous studiesand public meetings over the past 2 years todevelop and evaluate proposals for NTIS pri-vatization. A review of all available documentsindicates that the cost-effectiveness of privatiz-ing NTIS has not been established, and thatthe departmental task force studying the mat-ter recommended against privatization on vari-ous grounds. A 1986 departmental analysis ofthe entire range of options concluded that onlyminor adjustments were warranted, and rec-ommended against privatization on the groundsthat it would not be cost-effective and couldjeopardize important government functions.39

Consequently, OMB directed that privatiza-tion proceed not via the usual A-76 contract-ing out procedures, but through the new Fed-eral Employee Direct Corporate OwnershipOpportunity Plan (known as Fed Co-Op) pro-cedures issued in early 1987 by the Office ofPersonnel Management. Under Fed Co-Op,Federal employees are transferred into a pri-vate company or organization and receivestock ownership. Opponents argue that theFed Co-Op approach is circumventing other-wise unattainable A-76 requirements, and isessentially another privatization mechanismwith unproven value to the government. None-theless, the Department of Commerce issueda request for information in January 1988, helda pre-bidders meeting on January 29, 1988, andproceeded down the Fed Co-Op path.40 A con-gressional hearing held February 24, 1988 bythe House Committee on Science, Technology,and Space, Subcommittee on Science, Research,and Technology, revealed widespread opposi-tion to the Fed Co-Op privatization plan, in-cluding, notably, opposition from the Informa-

‘9U.S. Department of Commerce, “Privatization Proposal forthe National Technical Information Service, ” October 1986,transmitted from Assistant Secretary of Administration KayBulow to Carol T. Crawford, OMB Associate Director for Eco-nomic and Government, letter dated Nov. 13, 1986.

‘OU.S. Department of Commerce, “Request For Information:Privatization of the National Technical Information Service, ”Jan. 20, 1988.

tion Industry Association.41 Subsequently,the Secretary of Commerce rejected the plan.

The controversy over NTIS has precipitatedlegislative action by the relevant House andSenate authorizing committees to block pri-vatization. Both the House Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology and the SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-portation have enacted language prohibitingthe contracting out of NTIS, or any majorNTIS activities, without explicit statutory ap-proval. This prohibition was included as partof Title V (“Technology Competitiveness’ ofthe comprehensive trade legislation (H.R.4848) signed into law on August 23, 1988.Other congressional actions included languageincorporated by the House Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology in the NationalBureau of Standards Authorization Act for fis-cal year 1989 that would convert NTIS to agovernment corporation within the Depart-ment of Commerce, to be known as the Na-tional Technical Information Corporation.42

The House Committee on Energy and Com-merce, on a sequential referral, reported outthe NBS Authorization Act with amendmentsthat would prohibit NTIS privatization andwould authorize NTIS use of net revenues forcapital investment. However, the amendmentswould retain NTIS as a line agency of the De-partment of Commerce, not as a governmentcorporation. 43

Government reorganization. The NTIS con-troversy has been one more factor contribut-ing to heightened interest in proposals for re-organization of the major Federal information

“U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee onScience, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science,Space, and Technology, National Technical Information Serv-ice, Hearing, 100th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Print-ing Office, Washington, DC, Feb. 24, 1988.

‘zU. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee onScience, Space, and Technology, National Bureau of StandardsAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989, Report 100-673, Part1, 100th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC, June 3, 1988.

‘:]U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee onEnergy and Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Report 100-673, Part 2, 100thCongress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC, July 8, 1988.

275

institutions. Such proposals have been consid-ered over the past 8 years. As early as 1979,an advisory group appointed by the JCP con-sidered the possibility of establishing a newcentral office combining the functions of GPO,NTIS, and OMB with respect to public infor-mation policy, in order to facilitate public ac-cess and eliminate duplication. A NationalPublications Act of 1980 was introduced toestablish a National Publications Office alongwith a Commission that would replace the JCP,but the bill was not enacted.” In the pasttwo Congresses, legislation was introducedthat would combine the information dissemi-nation functions of GPO, NTIS, and the dis-semination or sales offices of major agenciesinto one governmentwide Government Infor-mation Office (GIO).45 The legislation wouldalso establish a Joint Committee on Govern-ment Information in Congress. In 1987, theNational Academy of Public Administrationcompleted a study that favored an NTIS cor-poration.46) Subsequently, legislation was in-troduced to reorganize NTIS into a govern-ment corporation, and now incorporated intothe House Science Committee version of theNBS Authorization Act, as noted above.47 In1987 hearings on these and other related bills,the Public Printer testified that GPO wouldbe pleased to provide an institutional home forNTIS as an alternative to privatization.48

And in 1988, the Librarian of Congress sug-gested that the Library of Congress also couldserve as a home for NTIS.49

‘tU. S. Congress, "National Publications Act of 1980, 96thCongress 2d sess.

‘ ‘U.S. Congress, II, R. 5412, “Government Information Actof 1986, ” 99th Congress, 2d sess., Aug. 13, 1986: H.R. 1615,“Government Information Act of 1987, ” 100th Congress, 1stsess., Mar. 16, 1‘387. Also see Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., Con-gressional Record. Mar. 16, 1987, E952-955.

‘bNational Academ~r of Public Administration, An Assess-ment of Alternati\re Organizational Structures for the NationalTechnical Information Ser\ice, Washington, DC, Feb. 1987.

‘W.S. Congress, H.R. 2159, “National Technical InformationAct of 1987, ” 100th Congress, 1st sess., Apr. 23, 1987.

‘“See statement of Ralph E. Kennickell, .Jr., Public Printerof the United States, before the Subcommittee on the Legisla-tive Branch. Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Mar.10, 1988.

‘<letter to Iionorable Doug J$’afgren, Chairman, Subcommit-tee on Science, Research, and Technology, Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,from Honorable James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress,Apr. 12, 19/+~.

The legislation introduced specified that theJoint Committee on Government Informationwould consist of 8 members, 4 from the Houseand 4 from the Senate, and, would not havelegislative authority, but would have the au-thority to hold hearings, and conduct othernonlegislative functions. The relationshipswith existing joint and standing committeeswere not specified. Depending on its jurisdic-tion, anew joint committee could be designedto essentially supercede and replace the exist-ing JCP, or it could complement the JCP. Anew joint committee would be unlikely to su-percede the functions of standing legislativecommittees, unless Congress were to departfrom a now well established tradition that jointcommittees not be assigned legislative au-thority.

The current JCP consists of 10 members, 5from the Committee on House Administrationand 5 from the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration. A new or reorganized jointcommittee could draw from a larger numberof committees. There are many possible com-binations. For example, with a total member-ship of 10, 2 members could be selected fromeach of the House Committee on Administra-tion and Senate Committee on Rules and Ad-ministration, 2 members could be selected fromeach of the House Committee on GovernmentOperations and Senate Committee on Govern-mental Affairs, 1 member could be selectedfrom the House Committee on Science, Space,and Technology and 1 from the Senate Com-mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation. There are several other committees withpotentially relevant jurisdictions, dependingon the scope of the new joint committee’s char-ter, including the House and Senate Commit-tees on the Judiciary and the House Commit-tee on Energy and Commerce.

Other alternatives include establishing Spe-cial or Select Committees on Government In-formation in the House and Senate, and/orstrengthening existing subcommittees (suchas the House Government Operations Subcom-mittee on Government Information, Justice,and Agriculture) or establishing new subcom-mittees (such as within the Senate Commit-tee on Government Affairs).

276

The primary rationale for a new joint com-mittee would be that government informationissues:

are becoming (or already are) priority na-tional issues in their own right;cut across the jurisdictions of severallegislative committees;reflect the merging of information tech-nologies along one continuum (from col-lection and processing to storage and dis-semination in a variety of printed and elec-tronic formats); andneed a broad, cross-cutting forum and fo-cal point in Congress.

As in any congressional reorganization, the ac-tual jurisdiction and scope of a new joint com-

mittee (or special or select committees) wouldneed to be agreed upon by the various exist-ing affected committees and, of course, by theHouse and Senate leadership. Achieving sucha consensus has proven to be a formidable taskin prior congressional reorganizations but hasbeen accomplished.

Other alternatives include: limiting the scopeof a new joint committee to “government in-formation dissemination, or possibly revisionof relevant provisions of Title 44. The JCP’sstatutory responsibilities could be revised tomore accurately reflect the broader concept ofgovernment information dissemination in-con-trast to the typically narrowly understood con-cept of printing.

IMPROVEMENTS IN INFORMATIONDISSEMINATION MANAGEMENT

OTA has identified several alternativeswhich could improve the management of Fed-eral information dissemination, irrespective ofother policy or institutional actions. Thesemanagement improvements could be imple-mented by executive action using existing stat-utory authority with the concurrence of Con-gress, but with no required statutory action.One or any combination of these alternativescould be incorporated into a legislative pack-age, as amendments to various statutes, shouldCongress determine that a stronger mandateis necessary.

Electronic Publishing/DisseminationTechnical Standards

As discussed in chapters 2,3, and 4, the gov-ernment is increasingly adopting electronicpublishing technologies and systems and a va-riety of electronic dissemination formats. Thereis consensus in and out of government thatappropriate technical standards are essential ifthe government wishes to realize potential cost-effectiveness and productivity improvements.Technical standards could facilitate electronicconnectivity between the various agency sys-

tems and those of the central information dis-semination agencies (such as NTIS and GPO),and flexibility among different formats (so thatthe same electronic text or database can be out-putted in a variety of formats—paper, micro-form, and/or electronic as appropriate). Elec-tronic publishing can also serve to connectoffice automation systems, publishing sys-tems, database systems, records managementor document storage systems, and the like.Since the initial keyboarding or inputting ofmaterial can be the most expensive step in theprocess, capturing this input for purposes oflater processing, revisions, composition, andreproduction is very important.

Standards developed through the widely ac-cepted governmental-private industry cooper-ative standards-setting mechanisms should beadequate, but the process may need to be ac-celerated. Key standards-setting areas include:

●

●

●

optical disks,text markup and page/document descrip-tion languages, andelectronic data interchange, including theopen systems interconnection concept asdiscussed in chapter 3.

—

277

It is important that the lead government agen-cies coordinate closely on standards-settingactivities. These agencies include the NationalBureau of Standards (NBS) for the civilian ex-ecutive branch units, a designated DoD unit(that can integrate and represent the activi-ties of numerous DoD components), and a des-ignated representative(s) of the legislativebranch. With respect to text markup andpage/document description standards, and per-haps other areas, GPO should be centrally in-volved.

All major text markup languages (includingStandard Generalized Markup Language andthe GPO’s Full Text Database language) andhybrids thereof should be considered in devel-oping an agreed upon Federal Governmentstandard. This standard (along with othersagreed to) could be issued concurrently by NBSas a Federal Information Processing Standard(FIPS), by DoD as a Milspec standard, and pos-sibly by GPO (and the JCP) as an amendmentto Federal printing and binding regulations.

Congress may need to accelerate the standard-setting process and/or assign responsibilities,although the standards setting itself wouldpresumably be delegated to the technical special-ists. (See chs. 3 and 4 for related discussion. )

Governmentwide Information Index

There is also consensus in and out of gov-ernment for the establishment of a govern-ment wide index to major Federal informationproducts—regardless of format. Scholars, re-searchers, and librarians have for years pointedout the need for improved indexing of Federalinformation. The results of the GAO surveyssummarized earlier indicate strong support foran index among the depository libraries, otherlibraries, scientific and technical associations,and general associations surveyed. Also, OTAmeetings with Federal agency officials identi-fied considerable support for an index, althoughsome agency officials were concerned that anindex might be used to thwart rather than en-hance agency information dissemination and/or that a governmentwide index might unnec-

essarily duplicate agency indices. Informationindustry representatives participating in theOTA study supported the concept of improvedindexing of government information, but somewere concerned that an index developed by thegovernment could discourage private sectorindexing initiatives and might result in a morecostly, lower quality product.

At present, GPO prepares an index to offi-cial Federal publications, primarily printedreports, pamphlets, and periodicals. NTIS pre-pares an index to the so-called “gray” litera-ture, that is, scientific and technical reportsand papers prepared by government staff andcontractors. These materials are primarily inpaper (or microfiche) format, and generallyhave very limited demand. There is a smallamount of overlap between the GPO and NTISindices. Some individual agencies prepare in-dices to their own information products andservices, including all of the major informa-tion dissemination mission agencies (such asthe Bureau of the Census, Bureau of LaborStatistics [BLS], DOE’s Energy InformationAdministration [EIA], Bureau of Justice Statis-tics [BJS], and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]).Coverage of electronic formats is irregular andincomplete. GAO at one time prepared an in-dex to Federal information products and serv-ices, but this effort has been terminated. Thereis no complete index. NTIS indexes some elec-tronic products. Several private vendors haveprepared directories to Federal databases and/or various categories of Federal information.The agency response to OMB Bulletin 87-14could lead to the development of improvedagency indices and provide the basis for an in-tegrated governmentwide index.

While there is support for an index, thereare differences of opinion on how and by whomthe index should be implemented. Respondentsto the GAO surveys were not asked to specifywhether an index should be provided by thegovernment, commercial vendors, or not-for-profit organizations. One possible alternativewould be for either GPO or NTIS to consoli-date the various agency indices into one in-tegrated index. The index could then be pro-

278

duced in a variety of formats–ranging frompaper and microfiche to optical disk and online.

Should Congress conclude that an index iswarranted and should be provided by the gov-ernment, Congress may need to assign respon-sibility for developing the index and requirethat a detailed implementation plan be pre-pared. The plan would need to consider: thedifferent bibliographic and indexing methodscurrently employed by NTIS, GPO, and otherFederal agencies; the cumulative experienceof the library and information science commu-nities with respect to indexing; and the suc-cesses and failures of prior governmental andprivate sector indexing initiatives.

Since the index information would not becopyrightable, private sector vendors wouldbe able to add value to, repackage, and/or resellthe information on the commercial market. Asnoted earlier, OMB Bulletin 87-14 directs agen-cies to establish and maintain an electronic in-dex (or inventory) of all their information dis-semination products and services, and to makethe index available to the public directly orthrough another Federal agency or the privatesector. The bulletin directs agencies not to of-fer information services already available fromthe private sector (or other agencies). It is un-clear whether this restriction is intended to ap-ply to the indices themselves. Also, the bulle-tin does not address whether and how theagency indices should be consolidated into agovernmentwide index and/or maintained ina centrally-accessible location. Congress mayneed to define the government’s interest andestablish how, if at all, any pre-existing pri-vately developed indices would need to be ac-commodated.

Government Information DisseminationInnovation Centers/Committees

Federal agency officials expressed strongsupport for much improved mechanisms toexchange learning and experience about tech-nological innovations. Federal agencies are in-volved in a very wide range of research, devel-opment, and operations activities with respectto information dissemination. To this end 114

—.

civilian departmental agency components re-ported having conducted studies as indicatedin Table 11-5.

There appears to be a substantial knowledgebase within the civilian sector of government,and this is paralleled by a similar or, if any-thing, greater level of knowledge-generatingactivity in the defense sector.

Table 11-5.— Federal Civilian Agency Researchor Evaluation Studies

Percent o f agenciesthat conducted a

research orTechnology evaluation study— —Electronic Collection/filingElectronic data transfer (computer to

computer) ., ., ., .,Floppy disk ... . . . . . ., . . : : : : :Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computerized telephone calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Non-paper StorageFloppy disk ... ... ... . . . . .,Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Micrographics (microfilm/microfiche) ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Optical disk (WORM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Videodisk . . .CD/1 . . . . . . . . ... . . ...Optical disk (erasable) . . . . . .

PrintingL a s e r a n d o t h e r n o n i m p a c t p r i n t i n g .Computer graphics . . . . .Desktop publishing systems. . . . . . . . . . .C o m p u t e r - a i d e d p a g e m a k e - u p . . . .E l e c t r o n i c p u b l i s h i n g s y s t e m s . . . .E l e c t r o n i c p h o t o c o m p o s i t i o n . . . . . .Photo-offset printing . . . . ... . . .Microform printing ., . . . . . . . ... .

Electronic disseminationFloppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .Electronic data transfer (computer to

computer) ., ... ., . .Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n b o a r dMagnetic tape/disk ... ... ...Teleconferencing ... . . . . . . ...Videotape . . .CD-ROM . . . . . : : : : : : : : :Expert systems . . . . . . . . . .Film ., ., . . .,Videoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . .Videodisk ... . . ... . . . . .Digital cartographic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Se lec t ive d isseminat ion o f in format ion

systems, . . . . . . . . . .Broadcast te lev is ion . . .CD/1 . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : :Videotext/teletext . . ., ., . . . .One-way cable television ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.Interactive cable television . . . . .,

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies 1987

5 4 452.64 8 24 5 61 6 7

51.84 5 64 1 221.918.414.0794.4

54.452.646543030.728.924.616.7

48.2

47.444.742.142.124.623.717.514.913213.210.57.9

7.07.05.34.4442.6

However, Federal officials at all levels, fromtechnical specialists to program managers tosenior policy makers, in both the civilian anddefense sectors, agree that current mechanismsfor the sharing and synthesis of this knowl-edge are very seriously deficient. This view iscorroborated by OTA staff and contractor re-search. Typically, knowledge is not sharedeffectively even within a single agency com-ponent, let alone between several agency com-ponents within a single department or betweendepartments.

There are some noteworthy efforts to ad-dress part of this problem, such as by the Fed-eral Publishers Committee, and the Special In-terest Group on CD-ROM Applications andTechnology (SIGCAT), both of which are quasi-official interagency groups. Other examples areCENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, DefenseInformation), an interagency group of Federalscience and technology agencies concernedwith scientific and technical information dis-semination, and the Depository Library Coun-cil, an advisory group to the Public Printer thathas devoted attention to electronic dissemina-tion pilot projects. Also, several agencies haverecently established laboratories for the test-ing, evaluation, and demonstration of new tech-nologies. These include the CD-ROM and Elec-tronic Publishing Laboratories at NBS, andthe Artificial Intelligence, Video Laser Disk,High Density Information Storage, and De-fense Information Gateway Laboratories oper-ated as an activity of the Defense TechnicalInformation Center. GPO has established aprototype dial-up microcomputer-based elec-tronic publishing and training program. Also,the Public Printer has proposed that GPOestablish a Federal Publishing Institute to pro-vide a cohesive training program for Federalprinting and publishing officials. And there area variety of relevant training programs andcourses offered in support of agency IRMactivities.

As commendable as these activities are, fur-ther efforts seem necessary. Congress maywish to consider legislating or directing theestablishment of information dissemination in-novation centers in each branch of government.

279

These could be located at DTIC (for the defensesector), NTIS and NBS (for the civilian execu-tive branch), GPO (for the legislative branch),and possibly, the Federal Judicial Center (forthe judicial branch). These major centers couldbe complemented by agency innovation cen-ters, perhaps operated as part of a strength-ened and revised agency IRM program (seelater discussion), and possibly by an academicresearch center funded to provide outside in-put to agency innovation. Also, Congress maywish to consider establishing or otherwisedirecting the formation of an interagency infor-mation dissemination task force or coordinat-ing committee with a primary task of encourag-ing innovation and exchange of knowledgegained from studies, pilot projects, and oper-ational experience. (For examples of pilot proj-ects, see chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.)

Finally, Congress may wish to encourage orrequire agencies to conduct planning studies,similar to that conducted by DTIC, to crea-tively explore and develop their own visionsof future information dissemination activities.In 1984, DTIC completed its DTIC 2000 studyand concluded that by the year 2000:50

DTIC will be a highly automated operationwhere the vast majority of data transfers areelectronic. It will be situated in an environ-ment where all users have access to computerwork stations; where computer storage has thedensity, access speeds, and reliability to per-mit full-text storage of all items; . . . wheremailing of paper products has been replacedby electronic transmissions; [and] where thepower/speed of computers and the sophistica-tion of software eliminate the need for bothmanual indexing and development of intricatesearch strategies.

Today DTIC is already beginning to imple-ment this vision. Although few Federal agen-cies have conducted a formal “Agency 2000”study, many are experimenting with electronicinformation dissemination. And variations onthe year 2000 scenario projected by DTIC

“(’U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agenc~’,Defense Techniml Information Center, DTIC 2000:.4 CorporatePlan for the Future, DTIC/TR-84/3, JUly 1984.

280

could be helpful to many other agencies in plan-ning their information future.

Revised Information Resources andPersonnel Management

The Information Resources Management(IRM) concept, as originally conceived and de-bated in the 1970s, was intended to include allphases of the information life cycle—collection,processing, analysis, storage, and dissemina-tion. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980essentially enacted the IRM concept, but theoriginal statutory language was vague as tocoverage of information dissemination. 1986amendments to the act removed most of theambiguity by including ‘information dissem-ination” in the statutory language. However,numerous Federal officials have observed thatinformation dissemination is still not an effec-tive part of many agency IRM programs or,if information dissemination is included, it isnot well understood by many senior IRM offi-cials. These observations have been confirmedby OTA staff and contractor research, and bystudies by nongovernmental groups.

For example, a 1987 National Academy ofPublic Administration study titled Federal In-formation Resources Management: BridgingVision and Action found that roughly half ofagency IRM offices surveyed did not includeresponsibility for library services, printing, orreproduction. Of the 16 departmental IRMoffices surveyed, only 8 covered library serv-ices and 9 covered printing and reproduction,while 15 of 16 covered paperwork reductionand 14 of 16 covered computer operations anddata telecommunications. Eleven of 16 coveredvoice telecommunications and record man-agement.

Two situations appear to warrant congres-sional attention. The first concerns senior IRMofficials, typically with ADP, computer, and/ormanagement information system backgrounds,who are viewed as frequently failing to under-stand or appreciate their agency’s informationdissemination functions, including library,printing, publishing, and public informationactivities, among others. These, in many cases,

appear to be the less understood or supportedmembers of the IRM family. Congress maywish to encourage or direct agency actions toremedy this problem. Possible actions include:

requiring that either the senior agencyIRM official or his/her deputy have in-formation dissemination training and ex-perience;establishing or designating continuingeducation programs for senior IRM staffto learn more about information dissemi-nation;strengthening the role of already existingcross-cutting groups such as the FederalPublishers Committee, the Federal Li-brary and Information Center Committee,and the Interagency Advisory Council onPrinting and Publishing Services;involving senior IRM officials directly inagency or innovation centers and inter-agency task force that may be established;andestablishing new or revised job definitionsand career tracks for information dissem-ination professionals working in the gov-ernment.

Developing career tracks for information dis-semination professionals could be particularlyimportant, since new technological applica-tions are changing the nature of many print-ing, publishing, writing, public information,library, and related jobs. However, there is lit-tle focused effort or agreement on how thesejob definitions should be revised. There isgrowing attention to the need to reclassifycomputer-related positions and to developappropriate training and career advancementopportunities (as evidenced by Office of Per-sonnel Management course offerings on thissubject). However, the focus to date has beenon traditional automated data processing po-sitions and not on information disseminationpositions.

There are no definitive estimates of the num-ber of Federal employees involved with infor-mation dissemination. However, if the defini-tion is applied broadly to include some portionof writers, editors, librarians, printers, public

281

affairs personnel, computer and communica-tion operators, and the like, the total wouldappear to be in the tens of thousands of em-ployees. The number of total Federal employ-ees in relevant job categories is shown in Ta-ble 11-6, along with OTA’s estimate of thepercentage directly involved with informationdissemination. Based on the assumed percent-ages of each job category involved with infor-mation dissemination (100 percent of printing,public affairs, and librarians; 50 percent ofaudio-visual, writing, editing, and archiving;10 percent of computer and communications),about 30,000 Federal employees are included.This is about 30 percent of the total employ-ees for the job categories listed, and undoubt-edly understates the actual number since sig-nificant, but unknown, numbers of engineers,technicians, analysts, statisticians, and adminis-trators in other job categories are involvedwith information dissemination.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM),the General Services Administration, and GPOcould be assigned responsibility to review allFederal job categories potentially relevant toinformation dissemination, assess the need for

reclassification, redefine the jobs as needed,and establish necessary training and career de-velopment programs. To be most effective,these activities would be carried out with fullparticipation of employees and employee orga-nizations, including relevant labor unions.

Involvement of GPO labor unions would beparticularly important for printing and relatedoccupations. GPO is the third largest Federalblue-collar employer in the Washington, D.C.area, as shown in Table 11-7. Also, GPO has

Table 11.7.—ToP 10 Federal Blue-Collar Employersin Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area,

Fiscal Year 1985

Number ofEmployer employees

Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.647Department of the Army. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,257Government Printing Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.942General Services Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 2,752Department of Health & Human Services . . . . 2,178Department of the Treasury, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,891Architect of the Capitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,634Department of the Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,157Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967SOURCE: Office of Personnel Management 1988

Table 11-6.—Federal Employees in Job Categories Relevant toInformation Dissemination, Fiscal Year 1985

—.Employees involved with

Total information dissemination

Job category employees Percent Number

Computer operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computer specialist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Computer clerk & assistant . . . . . . . . . . .Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Printing management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Printing clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Communications management . . . . . . . . . .General communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Communications specialists ., . . . . . . . . . .Communications clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Audio-visual production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Writing and editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical writing and editing. . . . . . . . . . . .Editorial assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Librarian ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Library technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical information services . . . . . . . . . .Archivist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Archivist technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10,25640,12210,2914,6171,490

3111,9333,2872,950

6363,286

9842,1381,7892,3583,5073,6191,530

4031,024

98,531

101010

100100100

10101010

10050505050

100100100

5050

1,0264,0121,0296,6171,490

311193329295

643,286

4921,069

8951,1793,5073,6191,530

202512

31,627SOURCE: Office of Personnel Management and Office of Technology Assessment 1988

282

the largest number of printing positions of allFederal agencies, as indicated in Table 11-8.These figures include printing occupations andnot supporting occupations such as carpentry,maintenance, mechanic, and industrial equip-ment operator. (For further discussion of theGPO labor force, see ch. 4.)

A second situation meriting congressionalconsideration is management information,especially budget and contracting data, aboutinformation dissemination activities. Annualas well as 5-year agency and governmentwideinformation technology plans generally do notbreak out expenditures for information dissem-ination. The agency responses to OMB Bulle-tin 87-14 may help in this regard, since OMBasked for agency expenditure data for all dis-semination products and services, includingelectronic formats. However, the responses arenot yet available. If this process does not work,Congress may wish to establish a reporting re-quirement. Also, the OMB bulletin may haveexcluded significant DoD activities. For exam-ple, DoD officials estimate that, of the $85-$100 billion total annual weapons systemsprocurement, 5 to 10 percent is spent on tech-nical information (i.e., the creation, mainte-nance, updating, and dissemination of techni-cal documentation for design, maintenance,and operation of weapon systems). This trans-lates into an annual expenditure of $4-$10 bil-lion for technical information just within the

Table 11-8.—Top 10 Federal Agencies With LargestPrinting Workforce, Fiscal Year 1985

Number ofAgency employees

Government - Printing Officea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,783Department of the Army . . . . . . ... . . . . . 1,042Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920Department of the Treasuryb . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527Department of the Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496Other Defense Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474General Services Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 189Department of Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113aIncludes only direct printing occupations such as composing, platemaking, let-

terpress, offset press, and bindery, and not general support technical, andmanagement occupations

bPrimarily the Bureau of Printing and Engraving

SOURCE Off Ice of Personnel Management 1988

weapons procurement accounts. The problemis that there is no separate reporting of con-tractual costs for technical information and in-formation systems. Therefore, DoD officialsare at a severe disadvantage in managing tech-nical information and information systemsprocurement, monitoring contractual perform-ance, negotiating contract modifications andfollow-ens, and evaluating actual capabilitiesagainst planned or projected performance.Even though DoD officials recognize the needfor improved reporting, management of theDoD bureaucracy is so difficult that congres-sional action may be needed.

For changes in information resource and per-sonnel management to be successful, a clearunderstanding by senior agency officials thatthe new information dissemination technol-ogies can, and probably will, significantlychange organizational structures, job defini-tions, and administrative procedures is neces-sary. The successful senior official will likelyhave a good strategic sense of where the agencyis or should be headed, and will define and im-plement the necessary training, career devel-opment, and managerial reporting techniquesneeded to move the agency in the desireddirection.

Finally, to the extent that agency press andpublic information activities are included withthe IRM umbrella, then IRM provides a pos-sible focal point for electronic disseminationof press releases and other perishable informa-tion. Federal agency public information offi-cials and members of the press interviewed byOTA generally supported the concept of elec-tronic press releases, although not as a totalsubstitute for the paper format. Several agen-cies already provide electronic press releasesdirectly to the press and/or via private elec-tronic news and wire services. The major ques-tion seems to be not whether but how the elec-tronic press releases should be provided. Ofparticular concern are the relative advantagesof various electronic formats and the equityimplications of alternative delivery and pric-ing mechanisms. For example, while small, out-of-town newspapers could be major benefici-aries of electronic releases, since mailed press

—— — ——

283

releases arrive several days late, these small need for consideration of action to minimizenewspapers may be the least able to pay for economic barriers to access. (For further dis-electronic services. This suggests the possible cussion, see ch. 10. )

IMPROVEMENTS IN CONVENTIONAL PRINTINGDespite the rapid increase in use of and de-

mand for electronic formats, the results of theGAO surveys and various other studies (seechs. 2, 3, and 4) indicate that paper is likelyto remain the format of choice for many pur-poses because of convenience and portability.There is likely to be significant demand for con-ventional ink-on-paper printed copies of a broadrange of Federal reports and other printed ma-terials. Even with advances in electronic pub-lishing (as outlined in chs. 3 and 4), many ofthese will require conventional ink-on-paperprinting. As a consequence, for at least the next5 years and probably longer, there will be aneed to continually improve the Federal Gov-ernment conventional printing capabilities,currently carried out largely by or throughGPO, except as specifically exempted by lawor by the JCP or GPO.

In obtaining printing from or through GPO,Federal agencies seek competitive costs, quickturnaround, and high quality; the agencies alsodesire accurate and timely cost estimates andbilling information. These three aspects ofGPO’s conventional printing work are dis-cussed below, along with identification of pos-sible alternatives for improvement.

c o s t

With respect to cost, some Federal agencieshave asserted that they could obtain printingmore cheaply by procuring directly from theprivate sector rather than from or throughGPO. To evaluate this assertion, OTA askedGPO to prepare cost estimates for 20 sampleprinting jobs printed at the GPO central plant,the GPO regional plants, and procured fromthe private printing industry by the GPO print-ing procurement office. OTA also asked threeof the major agency printing plants (at the De-partments of the Army, Commerce, and

Energy) to prepare cost estimates on the same20 printing jobs. Finally, OTA asked severalprivate printing companies to prepare cost esti-mates on the same 20 printing jobs. The 20sample jobs are described in Table 11-9, fol-lowed by cost estimates in Tables 11-10 and11-11.

The results indicate that GPO-procuredprinting is substantially less expensive thaneither GPO inplant or agency inhouse print-ing for these sample jobs. GPO central plantprinting is generally more expensive than GPOregional inplant printing; and agency inplantprinting is generally, but not always, more ex-pensive than GPO inplant (central or regional)printing. Several caveats are in order here.These results hold for the sample jobs only.Many of these jobs would not normally be doneat agency plants and the conclusion cannot bedrawn that current agency work is necessarilymore expensive than it need be. For example,for short reports and press runs, the Army’sprinting plant is less expensive than the GPOmain plant, but still more expensive than GPO-procured costs. Also, costs vary widely depend-ing on the match between specific jobs and spe-cific printing facilities and on the allocationof indirect and overhead expenses to printingcosts. Only gross generalizations are possiblebased on these data.

The results also suggest that GPO-procuredprinting is less expensive than or at least com-petitive with printing obtained by individualagencies directly from private printers. Thecost comparison suggests that private print-ing is rarely less expensive than GPO procured,typically more expensive than GPO-procuredbut less expensive than main plant inhouseprinting, and occasionally even more expen-sive than GPO inhouse printing. Again, sev-eral caveats apply. These results hold for the

284

Table 11-9.—Description of 20 Sample Printing Jobs Used for Estimating Costsa

Job Number Number Turnaround Trim sizeNumber of pages of copies time c (weeks) (inches) Binding

12 : : : : : : : : : : : : : :3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 : : : : : : : : : : : : : :7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8... . . . . . . . . . . .9... . . . . . . . . . . .

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.. . . . . . . . . . . . .12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.. . . . . . . . . . . . .18. . . . . . . . . . . . . .19. . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a lnk color black for all jobs, text stock 50 lb. white offset for all jobs except numbers 4, 8, 9 which are 60 lb. white offset and numbers 17 and 18 which are 70 lb.white matte coated Cover stock varies but was specified

b Quality levels per GPO standardsCNO surcharges

3044

22014236

832162440

108454

3646

12252

19620

320304

11,20032,018

5003,500

65,00030,25710,000

1,2012,9192,2001,3001,800

102,6192,834

4004,905

17,985175,019

1,1391,000

44333434334344443344

44222364124241423344

8½x118½xll8¼x10¾8½xll8½Xll8½xll8½Xll8½Xll8½xll57

/8x4¼8¼x10¾77

/8x 10¼4x5¼8½xll6x977

/8x10¼6x98½xll8½Xll77

/8X10¼

Drill and bandDrill and side stitchDrillPerfectSaddle stitchDrill and side stitchPerforate and saddle stitchShrink wrap and saddle stitchDrill and saddle stitchSide stitchDrill and saddle stitchDrill and perfectSaddle stitchSaddle stitchPerfectSaddle stitchPerfectSaddle stitchDrill and side stitchDrill and side stitch

SOURCE U S. Government Printing Office, 1988

Table 11-10.—Cost Estimates for 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars,GPO Regional and Main Plants

GPO main planta

In plant GPO regional plantb

Job number Procured In plant special rate Procured In plant

1 . . . . . . . . . . . $3,020 $12,046 $4,2912

$ 2,503 $ 9,8004,361 17,745 7,492 5,107 12,400

3 : : : : : : : : : ; : 872 5,785 1,732 960 3,5004 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,239 7,515 3,152 2,698 —5 . . . . . . . . . . . 11,375 21,005 15,854 12,114 14,5006 . . . . . . . . . . . 759 5,880 1,736 893 2,4007 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 3,192 3,026 1,179 2,5208 . . . . . . . . . . . 241 954 351 270 6459 569 1,971 862 633 1,260

10 : : : : : : : : : : : 448 1,816 690 472 1,51511 . . ... , . . . . 949 3,466 1,401 1,128 2,80012 . . . . . . . . . . . 3,868 12,046 6,550 4,630 —13 . . . . . . . . . . . 13,597 14,299 14,299 18,271 18,50014 . . . . . . . . . . . 744 3,128 1,152 769 2,10015 . . . . . . . . . . . 764 3,014 1,109 741 —16 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336 2,976 1,879 1,406 2,88517 . . . . . . . . . . . 24,248 27,100 27,100 19,411 —18 . . . . . . . . . . . 25,585 53,248 45,342 24,004 —19 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,301 9,676 4,488 2,542 2,76520 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,724 6,419 2,375 1,838 5,800aMain plant procured estimates based on general usage contracts using the average Price Of the lowest 5 bidders. in-Plant

estimates based on GPO price scale as of Dec. 1, 1987; in-plant special rate is equal to the 10th lowest bid plus 10%bEstimates are for Chicago regional plant, calculated on the same basis as for the main plant.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

--

285

Table 11.11. —Cost Estimates for 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars, Agency Plants and Private Printers

Agency plants Private printers direct bid

Job number Army Commerce Energy 1 2 3 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,140 $16,403 $ – $ 7,835 $ 8,256 $ 3,757 $ 3,7002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,555 19,647 — 2,242 14,641 5,823 12,1253... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,683 10,154 2,339 3,098 4,880 1,454 6,2654...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,604 11,770 6,414 7,027 5,731 2,711 16,1005... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,802 46,133 — 20,054 17,451 13,114 3,1006... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,703 3,532 — 7,270 4,600 1,004 2,0507... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,896 5,794 — 2,497 2,385 1,4348... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—294 1,846 681 898 833 239

9... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—

1,072 1,898 1,743 2,148 1,471 56710, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—673 1,289 1,078 2,169 1,489 530 —

11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,148 3,962 2,221 4,897 2,188 1,14912, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—12,503 18,876 9,209 11,920 10,195 4,981

13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—

28,261 38,525 — 17,977 9,485 17,867 —14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,995 3,192 2,474 3,248 2,093 933 —15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 2,699 1,446 1,908 2,034 585 —16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,902 5,443 3,571 3,890 2,674 1,515 —17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,873 87,291 — 27,096 24,000 24,624 —18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,556 80,545 — 44,348 33,785 37,514 —19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,577 10,158 4,553 10,834 — 2,938 —20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,651 8,264 4,120 8,412 — 2,307 —

SOURCE: Departments of the Army Commerce and Energy, private printers 1988

sample jobs only, and since independent esti-mates were obtained from only four privateprinting firms, the results while appearing rea-sonable, may not be representative. Also, aswith GPO and agency inplant printing, privateprinting costs vary widely depending on theequipment, workload, specialty jobs, and thelike. The GPO special rate (discussed in ch. 4)for main plant inhouse printing appears to ap-proximate roughly the cost agencies might payif obtaining bids directly from private vendors.The special rate inconsiderably less than thefull inhouse cost, but considerably more thanthe GPO procured cost.

Thus as shown in Table ll-l2 the total esti-mated cost of the 20 sample jobs ranges froma high of $213,281 for GP0 main plant inplantprinting to a low of $100,017 for GPO mainplant procured printing. The cost of GPO re-gional plant procured printing was almost iden-tical, at $101,569. The costs for private printersNo. 1 and No. 3 (the only 2 that bid on all 20jobs) along with the cost for GPO special rateprinting fall in the middle.

To further evaluate the cost of GPO procuredprinting, the GPO cost—which GPO estimatedby using the average price of the lowest fivebidders for each job–was compared with boththe average and lowest price per job of the pri-vate printers submitting bids directly to OTA.The results indicate that the total GPO mainplant procured cost of $100,107 is considera-bly less than the total average private printercost of $158,440, and is very competitive withthe lowest private printer cost of $98,658. Andthe latter figure may be unrealistically lowsince it is based on the low bid for every job,

Table 11-12.—Estimated Total Costs for 20Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars

Source of printing Cost of printinga

GPO main plant inhouse regular rate . . . $213,281GPO main plant inhouse special rate . . . 144,881GPO main plant procured . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,017GPO regional plant procured . . . . . . . . . 101,569Private printer No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,768Private printer No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,046

aFor 20 sample jobs specified in Table 11-9.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office and private printers. 1988

286

whereas the GPO estimate is based on an aver-age of the lowest five bids, a better approxi-mation of reality, according to GPO. The de-tailed comparisons are shown in Table 11-13.

In addition, the results of a recent Depart-ment of Commerce study indicated that estab-lishing a printing procurement capability atthe Bureau of the Census would not be cost-effective compared to using GPO procure-ment.51 GPO charges cost plus six percent forprocured printing. The Commerce study indi-cated that the costs of establishing and main-taining a printing procurement capability andthe likely diseconomies of scale would far exceedthe GPO six percent service charge. Britain’sgovernmental printing office (Her Majesty’sStationery Office) found that centralized print-ing procurement reduced costs (by roughly 15to 30 percent) through economies of scale and

‘i U.S. Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary forAdministration, Printing and Disseminating Census BureauPublications, April 1987.

Table 11-13.—Estimated Costs by Job and Totalfor 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars,

GPO Main Plant Procured and Private Printer

Job GPO Main Plant Private printer Private printernumber a procured b average bidC low bidd

1 . ....2 . . . . . .3 . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . .5 . , . . . , . .6 . .7 . . , . . . , .8 .9 . .

10 ...11 ... .12 ... , . . .13 . . . . . . . .14 . . . . . . .15 . . . . .1 6 . , . . .17 . .18 ., . .19 . . . . . . .20 . . .

T o t a l s

$ 3,0204,361

8722,239

11,375759

1,017241569448949

3,86813,597

744764

1,33624,24825,585

2,3011,724

$100.017

$ 5,8878,7083,9247,892

13,4303,7312,105

6571,3951,3962,7459,032

15,1102,0911,5092,793

25,24038,549

6,8865,360

$158,440

$3,7002,2421,4542,7113,1001,0041,434

239567530

1,1494,9819,485

933585

1,51524,00033,785

2,9382,307

$98.659aFor 20 sample jobs specified in Table 11-9bBased on average price of 5 lowest bids submitted to GPO.cBased on average price of private printers submitting bids to OTAdBased on low bid selected from among private printers submitting bids to OTA.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, Private printers and Office of Tech-nology Assessment 1988

more competitive bidding.52 Also, OTA’s in-dependent printing consultant concluded thatdispersing GPO’s printing procurement oper-ation among numerous Federal agencies or sep-arating the procurement function from theGPO main plant printing function would:

• result in diseconomies of scale,● increase overall procurement personnel

staffing and cost, and/or● reduce familiarity of printing procurement

personnel with the state-of-the-art andoperational realities of printing.

GPO obtains competitive bids for procuredprinting in part because of the large numberof potential bidders (roughly 15,000 eligible),a smaller but still significant number of activebidders (3,809 active contractors during the12 months ending March 31, 1988, of which936 were used by the main plant procurementoffice), and the large percentage of smallerfirms (about 85 percent of all GPO printingcontractors). Larger, more expensive firmstend to minimize printing for the government,which is understandable given that the Fed-eral Government accounts for only about onepercent of the total U.S. printing market, andmany private clients (especially corporateclients) will pay premium prices for printing.GPO uses a computerized system to select po-tential bidders, and is testing an online bid in-formation service whereby potential contrac-tors can check pending solicitations via anelectronic bulletin board.

In sum, based on information available toOTA, the cost of GPO’s procured printing ap-pears to be competitive, and there appears tobe no financial basis for dismantling the GPOprinting procurement program. However, thereis a basis for agency concern about the costof GPO main plant inhouse work. This workis more expensive than procured work, basedon the cost comparisons presented above, andat least some agencies prefer not to pay theextra cost. For example, both the Air Forceand the Navy indicated that they were “very

52Alex Smith, “The Latest Developments in Print Procure-merit, ” Government Printers Conference 1984, Conference Re-port, September 1984, pp. 9-11.

dissatisfied” with the cost of GPO printing.As excerpted from the GAO survey responses,the Air Force said that “GPO’s inhouse costsgreatly exceed commercial contractor pricesfor the same service.” The Navy said that“GPO’s inhouse prices are much too high com-pared to the Navy Publications and PrintingService inhouse and commercial contractors. ”

GPO’s Audit Group conducted a survey ofagency customers in 1983 and found that, asshown in Table 11-14, the majority of respond-ents felt that GPO inhouse work was more ex-pensive than GPO contractor work. This sur-vey has not been updated since 1983, and itshould also be noted that, while overall agen-cies preferred GPO contractors on cost (andtimeliness), they preferred GPO inhouse workover contractors with regard to quality andresponsiveness (solving problems). These sur-vey results are highlighted in Table 11-15. The1983 GPO survey results suggest greater con-cern about GPO inhouse costs than the 1987GAO survey (with about 14 percent of respond-ents indicating dissatisfaction with cost) butabout the same level of concern as the 1987Federal Publishers Committee (FPC) survey(with about 40 percent of respondents indicat-ing cost as a continuing problem).

As discussed in chapter 2, all of these sur-veys are subjective and qualitative, and theresults have not been validated. But the costcomparisons presented earlier provide inde-pendent documentation of the higher GPO in-house costs, and could by themselves–irrespec-tive of survey results—be considered as

Table 1 l-14.—Agency Views on Cost of GPO Work,1983 Survey of Agency Customers

Question: Do you feel that a job will be more expensive ifdone within GPO or by a GPO procured con-tractor?

Percent ofAnswer respondents

GPO ., . ., ... . 57.6G P O c o n t r a c t o r . , . . . . . . . . 8.8No difference, ... ... ., . 9.6Undecided ., ., ... 18.4N o r e s p o n s e . , . . . . . . . . . 5.0SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983

287

Table 1 l-15.—Agency Views on GPO Inhouse v.GPO Contractors, 1983 Survey

Question: For the most part, who would you prefer to-

produce your printing jobs?——————Percent of

Answers respondentsGPO . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4GPO contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 49,6No preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,0No response . ... . . . . . . . 4.0

Why would you prefer one over the other?—Prefer PreferGPOa contractor b

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . ... - 56.5 32.3T i m e l i n e s s . . . . . . . . . 47.8 72.6cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 74.2Easier to have problems

rectified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6 22.6Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 16No response ... ... . . . . . . . . 4.3 3.2aBased on 23 responsesbBased on 62 responses

SOURCE: U S Government Printing Office 1983

sufficient justification for cost-reduction ini-tiatives.

There are several alternatives for reducingthe cost to the agencies of GPO inhouse work:

continue to use the special rate mentionedearlier that roughly splits the differencebetween full inhouse costs and contractedcosts and covers GPO marginal costs plussome contribution to overhead;reduce indirect costs by limiting the typesof printing work done at the main plantin order to increase economies of scale,similar to the approach used by many pri-vate printing companies;reduce main plant overhead, including thepossibility of reducing overnight opera-tions if the Congressional Record and/orFederal Register are extensively dissem-inated in electronic formats rather thanin paper and microfiche;continue to look for opportunities to in-corporate cost-saving technology into theconventional printing process, and to makefurther upgrades in the efficiency of themain plant building; andseek congressional approval of an annualappropriation to cover some or all GPOoverhead costs.

288

Timeliness

The timeliness and quality of GPO printingare two other aspects included in the 1983 GPOsurvey and 1987 GAO and FPC surveys. Thesurvey results vary and are difficult to inter-pret and compare, given the different surveymethodologies utilized. OTA’s review of GPOdata on the timeliness of printing jobs, meas-ured as the percentage of jobs that are late ordelinquent, suggests the following:

●

●

●

First, the timeliness of GPO procuredprinting appears to be relatively constant,with about seven percent of all procuredprinting jobs delinquent over the fiscalyear 1983 to fiscal year 1987 period.Second, there is little difference in deli-quency rates between GPO regional andcentral office procurement. Over 90 per-cent of GPO procured printing jobs ap-pear to be completed on time regardlessof whether printing is procured throughthe central or a regional office.Third, the data do not suggest a wide-spread delinquency problem, althoughthese delinquency data do not reflect de-lays due to paperwork and signoff require-ments prior to the actual printing pro-curement.

An evaluation of how serious the seven per-cent delinquency rate really is requires infor-mation not available to OTA. Such an evalua-tion would require information on: the degreeof delinquency (how many days or weeks late);the reason(s) for the delinquency; the impact(s)of the delinquency on the GPO customer; andthe general performance level of the privateprinting industry in performing comparablework. GPO procured printing delinquency dataare shown in Table 11-16.

OTA also reviewed delinquency data for jobsprinted inhouse at the GPO mainplant. Thedata indicate that, for fiscal year 1987, thedelinquency rate for main plant printing jobswas about double that of procured printingjobs. And the delinquency rate for executiveagency printing jobs was about triple that of

Table 1 I-16.—GPO Procured Printing, Percent ofJobs Delinquent, by Fiscal Year

GPO GPORegional Office Central Office

Fiscal year procured jobs procured jobs

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 7.81984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 7.51985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 6.41986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 6.81987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 8.21988 (January-June). . . 6.6 7.6SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988

procured printing jobs. This suggests that, atleast relative to GPO procured printing, time-liness is a significant problem for GPO mainplant printing. However, several caveats arein order. First, GPO data indicate that morethan half of the delinquencies are 5 days or less.Second, a complete evaluation would requirethe types of information noted earlier for pro-cured printing. Third, central plant printingis subject to unique circumstances that requireassigning high priority on short notice to cer-tain congressional work. Priority congressionaljobs thus can delay other congressional jobsas well as executive agency work, which con-tributes to a higher delinquency rate. Solvingthis problem could necessitate congressionalaction to smooth the work flow, encourage real-istic delivery estimates, and limit prioritywork. In any event, GPO routinely could pro-vide customers with explanations of any de-lays over, say, five days, in order to facilitatecustomer understanding and target improve-ment efforts when needed. The main plantdelinquency rates are shown in Table 11-17.

Quality

In addition to timeliness data, OTA exam-ined GPO data on the quality of printing jobs.GPO has developed a Quality AssuranceThrough Attributes Program (QATAP). Un-der this program, five quality levels are de-fined, ranging from Level 5, duplicating (orlowest) quality, to Level 1, precise (or highest)quality. GPO has defined an acceptable defect(or error) rate as 6.5 defects per 100 items (i.e.,publication, pamphlet, book, etc.). The resultsof GPO quality audits for fiscal year 1987 in-

289

Table 11-17.—GPO Main Plant Printing,Percent of Jobs Delinquent, Fiscal Year 1987

Total Main Plant Jobs . . . . ....9,739Delinquent jobs 1,492Percent delinquent.. . . . . .

Total Congressional jobs . . . . . . . . . 7,558D e l i n q u e n t j o b s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 0 0 6Percent delinquent, . . . . . . .

Total Executive Agency jobs . ...........2,181Delinquent jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486Percent delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . ... . .

Degree of delinquency, all jobs3-5 days.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 6-10 days . ....... . . .11-15 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16-20 days ..,. . .21 or more days . .

SOURCE: U.S. Government Prining Office, 1988.

15.,3%

13.3%

22.3%

58%25%

9%3%5%

dicate very low defect rates for procured print-ing, averaging about 1.7 defects per 100 itemsfor the 540 jobs sampled, well within the accept-able rate. Only 9 of the 540 sample jobs wererejected due to unacceptable quality. For GPOcentral office inplant printing, the defect ratewas somewhat higher at about 4.3 defects per100 items, but still within the acceptable rate.However, the quality of inplant congressionalwork was somewhat better than inplant execu-tive agency work, 2.5 versus 5.6 defects per100 items, respectively. Also, a comparison ofquality levels for inhouse versus procuredagency work for fiscal year 1988 through Mayindicates that procured printing quality ishigher than inplant printing quality, and thatthe inplant defect rate exceeded the acceptablelevel in some reporting periods. These resultswarrant further study by GPO to determinewhy these quality differentials exist and whetherthey present any problems to customers. Thedetailed comparative data for inplant versusprocured agency work are shown in Table 11-18 for the most common quality levels.

Cost Estimating and Billing Procedures

Cost estimating is another area that appearsto be in need of improvement, based on the1983 GPO survey and 1987 FPC survey (GAOdid not survey agencies on this item). The GPOsurvey found that about half of the respond-ents did not receive accurate and timely cost

estimates most or all of the time, as summa-rized in Table 11-19. Since this survey is 5 yearsold, an update survey by the GPO Audit Groupappears to be warranted. The updated resultswould provide some indication of whether andhow much agency perceptions may have changedin this and many other areas.

With regard to details on actual cost and bill-ing information, GPO makes such informationavailable on request to GPO customers. How-ever, this places the burden on the customerto take the initiative, One possible solutionwould be for GPO to provide itemized billingfor all inhouse printing and for procured print-ing when the actual printing cost differs sig-nificantly (i.e., plus or minus 10 percent) fromthe estimated cost. The itemized, detailed bill-ing information might:

● eliminate most agency concerns,• help agencies better understand the eco-

nomics of printing, and• facilitate followup when serious cost esti-

mating or billing errors are thought tohave occured.

GPO also could encourage greater agencyuse of the existing Billing Information Center“telephone hotline” to resolve billing ques-tions, and the online Procurement Informationand Control System (PICS), which providesassistance in developing job estimates andtracks the status of procured printing jobs.According to GPO, 35 agencies have directelectronic access to PICS, with several moreon the waiting list to be connected. ShouldGPO opt for itemized billing, it is possible thatonly modest modifications to existing manage-ment information systems would be needed.

General Themes

The first general theme that emerged fromOTA’s study is the need for even stronger coop-erative working relationships between agencyprinters and publishers and GPO staff. Themembership and mission of the Public Printer’sInteragency Advisory Council on Printing andPublishing could be reviewed to ensure appro-priate balance. To some extent, FPC has been

-

290

Table 11-18. —Results of GPO Quality Audits, Number of Defects Per 100 Items,Inplant v. Procured Agency Printing

Quality level 3 Quality level 4

Time perioda In plant P r o c u r e d – I n p l a n t Procured

July 87-Oct 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5Aug 87-Nov 87. , ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2Sept 87-Dee 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1Oct 87-Jan 88. ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2Nov 87-Feb 88 ......, . . . 6.7Dec 87-Mar 88 . . . . . . . . . 3.5Jan 88-April 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5Feb 88-May 88 ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

3.86.05.23.01.41.31.21.2

2.33.83.31.93.54.54.96.7

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.3

aFour-month Moving Average

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988

Table 11 -19.—Agency Views on GPO Cost Estimates,1983 Survey

Question: How often are the GPO cost estimatesaccurate and, when received, timely?

Accurate Timely

Always/most of the time ., . . 42.4 38.4Some of the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 30.4Infrequently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 14.4Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 8.0Do not receive estimates . . . . . . . 5.6 2.4Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.0Undecided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.0No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 6.4

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

attempting to compensate for the limited rep-resentation of agency publishers on the Pub-lic Printer’s Advisory Council. Also, GPO maywish to consider establishing an advisory coun-cil for the Superintendent of Documents (Sup-Docs). One early objective of such a groupcould be to advise SupDocs on the completionof a marketing information system now underdevelopment. At present, it is difficult for Sup-Docs to generate information on the resultsof marketing efforts for specific agency prod-ucts. Also, such a council could be even moreimportant to the extent SubDocs extends itssales program to include a significant offeringof electronic formats.

The second general theme is the need for bet-ter coordination and cooperation between pub-lishers, printers, public information officers, fi-nancial and procurement officers (responsible forbilling and cost control), and the like within theagencies. While this is outside the direct pur-view of GPO, it is directly relevant to GPO

since coordination problems within customeragencies can create or aggravate problems be-tween the agencies and GPO. This topic couldbe addressed by the Public Printer’s AdvisoryCouncil, a SupDocs advisory group if created,the Federal Publishers Committee, and agencyIRM officers.

OTA identified several other areas for po-tential improvement in conventional printingoperations that, while outside the scope of thisstudy, warrant attention. These include:

Use of nonacidic paper for printing ofbooks, reports, and other materials witharchival value. As discussed in OTA’sseparate May 1988 report on Book Pres-ervation Technologies, the use of acidicpaper for printing has contributed to ex-tensive deterioration of older books andother documents. This is considered oneof the major problems facing the libraryand archival community. One part of thesolution is to increase the use of nonacidicpaper which has greater longevity. Eventhough GPO consumes a very small per-centage of the nation’s annual paper pro-duction, GPO could take a leadership po-sition in promoting the use of nonacidicpaper for Federal Government printingand in so doing provide an element ofleadership to the private and internationalprinting and publishing community. Also,GPO experience to date suggests thatnonacidic paper can be cost competitiveand meet other technical requirements.Accordingly, GPO has prepared and sub-

291

mitted to the JCP on interim specificationon nonacidic paper.

● Use of alternative printing inks (such assoy-based). Concern over disposal of haz-ardous wastes generated in part by con-ventional printing inks has generated in-creased interest in alternative inks. Onealternative is soybean-based ink. Whileearly GPO tests were unsuccessful, soybean-oil based inks are licensed by the Amer-ican Newspaper Publishers Association,available at competitive prices, and usedsuccessfully by various newspapers. GPOis conducting, at congressional request,an economic and technical feasibilitystudy of printing the Congressional Rec-ord and Federal Register with soy ink.

● Use of expert systems software for print-ing management. Effective managementof printing activities involves the optimalselection of equipment for a given docu-ment type, length, press run, and the likemultiplied, in the case of GPO, many timesover due to the wide variety of types ofequipment, printing and staffing require-

ments, and customer demand (in terms ofdocument type and cost, timeliness, andquality considerations). GPO uses a com-plex process to make decisions on whetherto produce a job inhouse or procure it com-mercially, and must take into accountsuch factors as the requested deliverydate, security classification, availabilityof paper and/or materials, and productioncapacity. The latter is a function of work-in progress at various stages of the print-ing process and the projected progress ofjobs toward completion. This type of de-cision framework appears ideally suitedto expert systems software. GPO couldexperiment with several types of off-the-shelf expert systems software availablefrom private vendors and develop its ownapplication starting with one of the com-mercially-available expert system shells.Expert systems software should be ableto improve GPO decisionmaking and couldeventually be offered to customer agen-cies to assist their decisionmaking.

Chapter 12

Setting Future Directions for theSuperintendent of Documents

and National TechnicalInformation Service

CONTENTS

PageSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................295Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................296The Competitive Electronic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......296Institutional Alternatives for SupDocs and NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................300Centralizing Government Electronic Information Dissemination . ......300Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ....301Reorganizing SupDocs as Part of a Legislative Printing Office . .......303Consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office’’ or Government Corporation .. ....305Authorizing SupDocs or the Consolidated SupDocs/NTIS to Produce

and Disseminate Electronic Formats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307Broader Implications of SupDocs/NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................309Government Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness. . ..................309Agency Missions and the Role of SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...310Private Sector Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..312Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....316

Setting FutureSuperintendent

Chapter 12

Directions for theof Documents and

National Technical Information Service

SUMMARY

Any electronic future for the Superintendantof Documents (SupDocs) within the U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office (GPO) and for the Na-tional Technical Information Service (NTIS)must take into account the increasingly decen-tralized, competitive environment that char-acterizes the electronic information market-place. The Federal Government is moving inthe direction of electronic information systemsat the heart of most agency activities. Of par-ticular significance for SupDocs and NTIS arethe technological advances that are changingor blurring the traditional distinctions betweenprinting and dissemination, reports and data-bases, and the roles of individual mission agen-cies (and the private sector) versus govern-mentwide dissemination agencies. This chapteraddresses current and future opportunities forthese two agencies and the broader implica-tions of expanded roles in electronic dissemi-nation.

In the long-term (10 to 20 years), the myriadof possible information dissemination alterna-tives facilitated by technological advancescould transcend the current institutional frame-work. Full understanding of long-term alter-natives will require several years of pilot tests,demonstrations, and experiments and relatedevaluation studies. Consideration of variousalternatives needs to accommodate the resultsand “lessons learned” or run a high risk offailure.

In the short-term (3 to 5 years) and possiblymedium-term (5 to 10 years), the future is morecertain, and the basis for setting directions bet-ter established. Over at least this time frame,the need for some governmentwide informa-tion dissemination mechanisms is likely to con-

tinue. In the short- to medium-term, there area number of institutional alternatives for Sup-Docs/NTIS electronic information dissemina-tion, ranging from a highly centralized infor-mation dissemination infrastructure to fullyprivatized approaches, and all with various ad-vantages and disadvantages.

The middle-ground alternative of includingselected electronic formats in the SupDocs andNTIS sales programs, with individual agen-cies disseminating electronic products as wellas private vendors reselling or further enhanc-ing Federal electronic products, would appearto have significant favorable impacts on: pub-lic access, government productivity and cost-effectiveness, agency missions, the private sec-tor economy, and international leadership.However, to implement this alternative, bothSupDocs and NTIS would need to:

●

●

●

●

●

obtain the necessary additional technicalexpertise,strengthen strategic planning capability,increase participation in governmentwidestandard-setting and innovation activities,strengthen pilot testing and demonstra-tion programs, andinvest in state-of-the-art electronic equip-ment.

The middle-ground alternative is likely tohave generally beneficial effects on businessusers of Federal information, especially smallbusinesses. The information technology equip-ment and services industry and the printingindustry are not likely to be significantly af-fected. Nor does it appear that SupDocs/NTISoffering electronic formats would pose any sig-nificant competitive or economic threat to the

295

296

commercial information industry as a whole. private offerings would result. And there is alsoHowever, there could be a significant impact the option of the SupDocs or NTIS contract-ion a small segment of the industry—those ing with various of these firms, perhaps at vol-firms that specialize in government informa- ume discount rates, where direct competitiontion. The impact could be favorable, if new op- might exist.portunities for repackaged or further enhanced

INTRODUCTION

Previous chapters have discussed overall of electronic formats. The institutional alter-trends in technology, applications, user needs, natives range from:and public policy issues that are relevant tothe future of GPO and NTIS. The purpose here ●

is to present a broader framework for settingdirections for GPO and NTIS with respect toelectronic dissemination. ●

This chapter begins with a discussion of theincreasingly competitive environment that ●

faces GPO and NTIS with respect to electronicdissemination, as contrasted with dissemina-tion of paper formats. ●

The chapter then considers a number of in-

a fully centralized, consolidated govern-mentwide approach to electronic dissem-ination;to separate roles for GPO and NTIS forthe legislative and executive branches, re-spectively;to a consolidated SupDocs and NTIS, pos-sibly within a new Government Informa-tion Office or the equivalent; andto a privatized SupDocs and NTIS.

stitutional-alternatives for implementing GPO Finally, the chapter discusses some of theand NTIS roles in electronic dissemination. implications of an electronic GPO and NTISThe future of these two institutions needs to for government productivity, agency missions,be considered together, if for no other reason and impacts on the private sector, among otherthan the potential overlap with respect to sales areas.

THE COMPETITIVE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT

A major trend relevant to designing an elec-tronic future for GPO and NTIS is the increas-ingly decentralized, competitive environmentthat characterizes the electronic informationmarketplace. Whereas the technology andeconomies-of-scale of paper formats tend to fa-vor centralized approaches (at least for largerpress runs and/or more complex documents),electronic formats lend themselves to decen-tralized approaches.

The Federal Government is moving in thedirection of employing electronic informationsystems at the heart of most agency activities,including the collection, processing, and dis-semination of information. The nature of thistransition was discussed in earlier chapters

(especially chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and is drivenby the following key technological factors:

a series of technological breakthroughsthat make electronic dissemination of Fed-eral information a viable option for manypurposes;development of technology and relatedtechnical standards that offer, for the firsttime, the near-term prospect for integratedinformation systems utilizing the ‘ ‘infor-mation life cycle’ concept whereby the col-lection, processing, analysis, storage, anddissemination (and ultimately retention orarchiving) of information in multiple for-mats (paper, microfiche, and electronic) areviewed and implemented as interrelated

297

●

●

●

functions rather than separate, unrelatedactivities;a significant increase in the demand forFederal information in electronic formatsamong various user groups, and especiallythe library community, private industry,Federal agencies themselves, and variousgroups or individuals with specializedneeds (such as disabled or handicappedpersons, educators, and rural citizens):a substantial ongoing investment by theFederal mission agencies in agency auto-mation that, if planned and implementedproperly, can incorporate multi-format in-formation dissemination at little addi-tional marginal cost compared to the to-tal cost of automation and with significantnet cost savings for agency informationfunctions; anda rapidly growing base of Federal agencyexperience with pilot tests and applica-tions of new electronic technology to Fed-eral information dissemination.

Technological advances are changing or blur-ring the traditional distinctions between print-ing and dissemination, reports and databases,an-d the roles of individual mission agencies(and the private sector) versus government-wide dissemination agencies. This trend is par-ticularly significant when considering alterna-tive futures for GPO and NTIS.

First, technological advances are changingor even eliminating the distinctions betweeninformation creation, storage, printing, anddissemination. The integrated information sys-tem using the ‘‘information life cycle concept’is a plausible template for future Federal (andprivate sector) information dissemination. Thismeans that information is captured in elec-tronic form when collected or created and isretained in electronic form through whateverrevision and processing cycles are needed. Theinformation can then be converted into multi-ple output formats from the same electronicdatabase. Illustrative output formats include:

● laser printing for proof copies and shortpress runs of paper documents,

● phototypesetting and offset press print-

●

•

●

●

●

ing for higher quality and/or longer pressruns of paper documents,remote printing-on-demand using telecom-munications and laser printers,optical disks (including high volume Com-pact Disk-Read Only Memory [CD-ROM]production),magnetic tape and diskettes,microform, andonline electronic access.

Second, technological advances arc chang-ing or even, in some cases, eliminating at leastthe technical distinctions between reports,publications, databases, records, and the like.One template for the future is that almost alltypes of Federal information will exist in elec-tronic form as an electronic database on a com-puterized system. The government and/or userwill have a wide variety of output formats tochoose from. For example, a typical 200 pageOTA report could be available as:

● a high quality printed report,Ž a microfiche,● an online electronic file for information re-

trieval and selective printing-on-demand,and

• one of several electronic files on a CD-ROM.

All of these products could be derived from thesame electronic database. The type of outputformat would vary, of course, depending on thetype of information and the desired use.

Third, technological advances are blurringthe distinctions between the institutional rolesof Federal agencies involved with informationdissemination. For example, today the Federalmission agencies generally collect and createFederal information products that are dissem-inated in paper formats via the SupDocs, De-pository Library Program (DLP), NTIS, and/orConsumer Information Center (CIC), depend-ing on the nature of and demand for each par-ticular document. A small portion of paper ormicrofiche documents are reprinted by privatepublishers, and an even smaller percentage areplaced online or in other electronic formats.

In contrast, an agency electronic database(whether a report, model, or statistical series)

298

could, from a technical feasibility standpoint,be electronically disseminated directly fromthe agency to agency clients, to informationusers, and to the depository libraries, bypass-ing the SupDocs, NTIS, and CIC. Or the agencydatabase could be disseminated via one or moregovernmentwide clearinghouse mechanisms,These could be the SupDocs/GPO or NTIS orCIC, but could also be the National Libraryof Medicine (NLM), National Agricultural Li-brary (NAL), Library of Congress (LOC), and/or any of a variety of commercial electronic‘‘gateways’ used by the government. Also,since the electronic form of the agency data-base would not be copyrightable and assum-ing it is accessible under the Freedom of In-formation Act (FOIA) if not directly available,the database could be repackaged or enhancedby private information vendors. There aremany possible combinations.

In sum, the myriad of possible informationdissemination alternatives facilitated by tech-nological advances could transcend the currentinstitutional framework. The current frame-work, including the roles of GPO and NTISand the relevant statutory provisions, was de-veloped over decades largely to accommodatean historical era when Federal information wascollected, stored, printed, and distributed onlyin paper format.

The advent of electronic information tech-nology has contributed to the complexity andcompetitiveness of the current Federal infor-mation environment. While there is an urgentneed for setting future directions, considera-tion of various alternatives needs to accom-modate this complexity or run a high risk offailure. Thus, planning the future of suchinstitutions as the GPO and NTIS is bothblessed with many new opportunities, butfraught with new uncertainties and complexi-ties since their future is inextricably tied tothat of the overall Federal information dissem-ination enterprise.

In setting future directions for GPO andNTIS, a two-track strategy warrants seriousconsideration: long-term, and short to medium-term. For the very long-term (10 to 20 years),

the advancing technology and the by thenalmost fully automated Federal informationinfrastructure are likely to facilitate Federalelectronic information dissemination in severaldifferent ways. These possibilities include:

dissemination of Federal electronic infor-mation products directly from Federalagencies to customers using agency orFederal telecommunication networks foronline products, and the U.S. mail and/orprivate courier services for offline prod-ucts (e. g., CD-ROM, floppy disk, papercopies);electronic (online) dissemination as aboveand/or the use of commercial or nonprofitelectronic gateway or networking services,including those offered by telephone andvalue-added carriers;electronic (online) dissemination by Fed-eral agencies using one or more government-operated electronic gateways, clearing-houses, or switching centers–operated byGPO, NTIS, or another agency—not un-like those being developed by NLM andthe Defense Technical Information Cen-ter (DTIC);production of offline electronic informa-tion products (e.g., tapes and disks) byFederal agencies directly or by agencycontractors, and/or by GPO (or the equiva-lent central government electronic pub-lishing office);sale of offline information products byFederal agencies directly or by agencycontractors, and/or by GPO or NTIS (orthe equivalent central government infor-mation sales office); andsale of repackaged and value-added Fed-eral information products by a wide rangeof private vendors, including both onlineand offline information products and bothprofit and nonprofit sales outlets.

The range of technologies and technicaltrends discussed in earlier chapters (see espe-cially ch. 3) could, in the long-term, be deployedto support a wide range of institutional rolesand responsibilities in Federal information dis-semination. It is likely that most sectors ofAmerican society will, in the long-term, make

—

extensive use of microcomputers in the home,community, and office. There will also be easyaccess to desktop publishing and online infor-mation retrieval capabilities interconnected viaa plethora of governmental, commercial, andnonprofit networks, gateways, and databaseservices. These electronic interconnections willbe facilitated by a robust offering of satellite,fiber optic, microwave, cable, and hybrid trans-mission systems. It is also likely that most sec-tors of American society will have (or have ac-cess to) microcomputer-based expert systemssoftware to assist with information search, re-trieval, and management, and optical disk sys-tems for storage and manipulation of largevolumes of information.

A full understanding of the long-term alter-natives and implications for Federal informa-tion dissemination will require several yearsof pilot tests, demonstrations, and experimentsand related evaluation studies. These demon-strations will provide information crucial tosetting future long-term directions, includingfuture directions for GPO and NTIS. ManyFederal mission agencies, GPO, and variousprivate sector commercial and nonprofit orga-nizations have tests and demonstrations under-way. More are planned. And NTIS is givingattention to a demonstration program as well.

In the short-term (within 3 to 5 years) andpossibly the medium-term (5 to 10 years), thefuture is more certain, and the basis for set-ting directions better established.

In setting short-term directions for GPO andNTIS, the issues discussed in chapter 11 (andch. 7 regarding depository libraries) need tobe considered as well as the electronic alterna-tives discussed in chapters 4, 5, and 7. The keydirections involve the following elements:

GPO provision of electronic publishingsupport to Federal agencies (recognizingthat GPO will be competing with bothagency inhouse capabilities and privatesector electronic publishing service bureaucapabilities);SupDocs sales of electronic formats (rec-ognizing that SupDocs will be competing

299

with some private vendors, some Federalagencies who choose to sell their own elec-tronic products, unless directed otherwise,and possibly NTIS, unless close coordi-nation with SupDocs is maintained);NTIS sales of electronic formats (recog-nizing potential competition with Sup-Docs, vendors, and agencies, as above);andSupDocs distribution of electronic for-mats to the depository libraries (recogniz-ing that libraries may also be receivingFederal electronic information from com-mercial vendors and nonprofit organiza-tions as well as direct from some agencies).

Possibilities for GPO electronic publishingsupport have been discussed in chapter 4, andelectronic dissemination to depository librariesin chapter 7. Technical aspects of SupDocs andNTIS electronic document sales were discussedin chapters 4 and 5. The remainder of this chap-ter considers a variety of institutional alter-natives for and broader implications of imple-menting SupDocs and NTIS electronic salesprograms.

This discussion assumes that the basic needfor sales of government information continues,as reflected in the statutory and other congres-sional policy guidance applicable to GPO andNTIS, and that some kind of governmentwideinformation dissemination mechanisms areneeded for at least the medium-term. This lat-ter assumption reflects the reality that the in-formation life cycle concept, multi-format out-put, decentralized networking, and the like willtake many years to fully implement in the Fed-eral Government. Governmentwide dissemi-nation approaches are needed to minimize theburden on and hopefully the cost to the cus-tomers and also to ensure broad public access,Also, the results of the GAO surveys of Fed-eral agencies (ch. 2) and Federal informationusers (chs. 4 and 5) suggest a significant andcontinuing need for the kinds of functions per-formed by SupDocs and NTIS in the dissemi-nation of Federal information. 1

‘ For further relevant discussion of GPO, DLP, and NTIS,see, for example, Peter Hernon and Charles R. McClure, Fed-

/(’(111 [ Irlue(i on n(J.k [ J)ilgt’1

300—

(continued from previous pagejeral Information Policies in the 1980 ‘s: Conflicts and Issues(Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, 1987): Charles R. McClure, PeterHernon, and Gary R. Purcell, Linking the U.S. National Tech-nical Information Service With Academic and Public Libraries(Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, 1986); and Peter Hernon, CharlesR. McClure, and Gary P. Purcell, GPO Depository LibraryProgram: A Descripti\’e Analysis (Ablex: Norwood, New Jer-sey, 1985). For discussion of longer-term technological and so-cietal futures, see, for example, Alvin Toffler, The Third W’a!’e,William Morrow (New York, NY, 1980); John Naisbitt,Megatrends (Warner Books: New York, NY, 1980): Benjamin

M. Compaine, Information Technology and Cultural Change:Toward A New Literacy? (Harvard University Program on In-formation Resources Policy: Cambridge, MA, 1984), U.S. Con-gress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual PropertyRights in an Age of Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT-302, April 1986; Clement Bezold and Robert Olson, The Infor-mation Millenium: Alternative Futures, Report prepared by TheInstitute for Alternative Futures for the Information IndustryAssociation (Washington, DC, November 1986); and U.S. Con-gress, Communication Systems for an Information Age, OTA-CIT, forthcoming Spring 1989.

INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SUPDOCS AND NTISELECTRONIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

The following institutional alternatives forSupDocs and/or NTIS are discussed in thissection:

centralizing all or most government dissem-ination functions in one office or agency,privatizing SupDocs and NTIS,reorganizing SupDocs as part of a legis-lative printing office,consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/orreorganizing as a “Government Informa-tion Office’ or ‘Government InformationCorporation, ” andauthorizing SupDocs or the consolidatedSupDocs/NTIS to produce and dissemi-nate Federal information in all formats.

Centralizing Government ElectronicInformation Dissemination

Under this alternative, dissemination of Fed-eral electronic information products, whetherfor sale or for free, would be permitted onlythrough SupDocs or the equivalent. NTIS andmission agencies would no longer be author-ized to disseminate electronic informationdirectly to the public. This alternative wasstrongly opposed by many Federal executiveagency officials. Agency officials believe thatFederal information activities and users areso diverse and complex that centralizing ex-pertise on these information activities andusers would be very difficult. They argue thatclose interaction between information pro-viders and users is essential not only for effec-tive dissemination, but also for effective de-

velopment of the information products andservices.

The major benefits of totally centralized elec-tronic information dissemination are easierpublic access and reduced overlap and dupli-cation in government information functions.However, attempts to centralize electronic dis-semination to this high degree would likely beheavily resisted with chaotic and possiblydetrimental net impacts on public access. Alsothe central dissemination agency probablywould require increased financial and organiza-tional resources which probably would not beoffset by cost and organizational reductionsin the mission agencies. Agencies would belikely to retain as many functions as they couldon the grounds that most extant personnel andcapabilities are necessary to the creation of theelectronic information products, regardless ofhow and by whom the products were dissem-inated.

The centralized alternative was also criti-cized as increasing the risks of excessive or im-proper control over or manipulation of Federalelectronic information dissemination, and asinconsistent with the checks and balances in-herent in diversity and decentralization of in-formation control. In addition, if the centralinformation office were located in the legisla-tive branch, the alternative would be likely toexacerbate separation of powers issues. ManyFederal agency officials participating in theOTA study expressed considerable support forthe central index and standards (discussed in

301

ch. 11), but not as part of a totally centralizedinstitutional alternative.

Another variation of the centralized alter-native would be to combine the electronic in-formation sales functions of the mission agen-cies in one central office, such as SupDocs ora Government Information Office. Agenciescould continue to otherwise disseminate theirown information as they do today. At present,agency electronic information product sales arehandled directly by the agency or in some casesby the NTIS clearinghouse and/or by inter-agency agreement with NTIS or in a very fewcases by SupDocs. Agency sales of paper for-mats are handled by SupDocs for items ac-cepted into the SupDocs sales program (includ-ing subscriptions to agency periodicals), by theagency for other paper formats, and by NTISfor items included in the NTIS clearinghouse.Under a more centralized arrangement, allsales functions (for both paper and electronicformats) would be combined in one office (whichcould be SupDocs, NTIS, a consolidated Sup-Docs/NTIS, or a Government Information Of-fice). Agencies would still handle free dissemi-nation of their own information products,except for items handled through CIC.

This partially centralized alternative is viewedby many Federal executive agency officialsparticipating in the OTA study as less threat-ening than a fully centralized government in-formation dissemination function. However,any mandatory requirement to sell electronicformats solely through a central governmentoffice would conflict with numerous existingagency activities, be likely to meet consider-able agency opposition, and could precipitatelegal and political challenges to the statutorybasis for such a requirement.

A third variation of the centralized alterna-tive would be for SupDocs or NTIS or a con-solidated SupDocs/NTIS to include selectedagency electronic information products in theSupDocs or NTIS or combined sales program,but not to the mandatory mutual exclusion ofagency sales. Under this alternative, agenciescould decide to rely entirely on a centralizedsales office, but this would be at agency dis-

cretion. While this alternative would meansome degree of overlap and duplication in salesactivities, it would strengthen the government-wide information dissemination mechanismswhile at the same time preserving a consider-able degree of agency independence with re-spect to their own information disseminationactivities. (This alternative is discussed fur-ther later in this chapter. )

Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS

Privatizing NTIS has been advocated by theAdministration over the last several years,and, from time to time, privatizing GPO hasbeen suggested. Some other countries haveprivatized both government printing and doc-ument sales functions. Theoretically, a Fed-eral electronic information sales program couldbe contracted out to the private sector. Threemajor criteria for evaluating privatizationproposals are: the inherently governmental(versus commercial) nature of the governmentactivity; the cost-effectiveness of privatizationto the government; and the impact of privati-zation on the commercial marketplace.

Inherently Governmental v. CommercialFunctions

NTIS and SupDocs activities are genericallysimilar to private sector functions. Certainlyprivate firms can and do carry out informa-tion clearinghouse, printing, marketing, sales,and dissemination activities. However, NTISand SupDocs are arguably inherently govern-mental because they:

operate pursuant to public law,carry out important public responsibili-ties in promoting public access to Federalinformation,facilitate an informed citizenry,assist the mission agencies in carrying outtheir statutory responsibilities, andadvance scientific and technical progressin the United States as is especially thecase with NTIS.

Second, NTIS and SupDocs receive almostall of their source materials from other Fed-eral agencies, on a voluntary basis in the case

302—-

of NTIS and subject to Title 44 requirementsfor SupDocs. There is no guarantee or require-ment that Federal agencies would continue toprovide information to a privatized NTIS, and,indeed, some Federal science agencies havesaid that they would not. The possibility ofrequiring Federal agencies to participate in aprivatized publication sales program in lieu ofthe SupDocs program would appear to raiseserious legal problems (including the necessityto amend Title 44 and possible ramificationsfor numerous statutes), and some agenciesmight be expected to not cooperate with aprivatized SupDocs.

Third, both NTIS and SupDocs have activeprograms for the international exchange ofreports and materials with various countries.This is an important element in the free andopen flow of information between governmentsand across national boundaries. There is noguarantee or requirement that foreign coun-tries would continue to cooperate with a priva-tized NTIS and SupDocs. In the debate overNTIS privatization, some foreign governmentsindicated serious concerns about cooperatingwith a privatized NTIS.

Fourth, both NTIS and SupDocs carry outa variety of other functions, some explicitlyrequired by statute, others on a voluntary, re-imbursable basis for various Federal agencies.For example, NTIS is responsible for technol-ogy transfer, patent licensing, and Japaneseliterature translation programs, and also forreimbursable information processing and salesfor other agencies. Also, NTIS serves as anoutlet for FOIA requests (for materials placedby agencies in NTIS) and as the repository forOMB-mandated agency inventories of elec-tronic information products. SupDocs is re-sponsible for administering DLP and also oper-ates the CIC on a reimbursable basis for theGeneral Services Administration (GSA). Thedebate over NTIS privatization suggests thatmany of these kinds of activities are not amena-ble to privatization.

In sum, both NTIS and SupDocs have de-veloped a complex, intricate web of relation-ships with Federal agencies (and other govern-

ments) and carry out numerous functions thatare either required by law or that support theability of other agencies to fulfill their statu-tory obligations.

Cost-Effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness of privatizing NTISor SupDocs has yet to be established. With re-spect to NTIS, analyses conducted by the De-partment of Commerce concluded that privati-zation would cost—not save—the Governmentmoney. A cost-effectiveness study would needto consider not only transition costs and re-sidual costs to the government but also thecosts to all relevant government agencies—not just the Department of Commerce (forNTIS) or GPO or Congress (for SupDocs). Forexample, NTIS performs roughly $1 millionworth of reimbursable production services peryear for other agencies, and also performs bill-ing and collection services through reimburs-able agreements with NLM, DTIC, and NAL.The financial impact on these and other agen-cies would need to be considered.

As another example, SupDocs is able to ob-tain copies of agency reports at marginal ratherthan full cost by “riding” the agency ordersfor the additional copies needed for SupDocssales and depository library distribution. IfSupDocs were privatized and many agenciesno longer cooperated, the SupDocs cost of ob-taining copies would be likely to increase sig-nificantly, thereby increasing the cost to thecustomers (of SupDocs sales) and taxpayers(who finance DLP distribution).

In addition, a cost-effectiveness study wouldneed to consider NTIS and SupDocs privati-zation in light of the plans and activities ofother Federal agencies with respect to Federalinformation dissemination. Most of these agen-cies are pursuing a variety of technical options,with numerous possible implications for thefuture of NTIS and SupDocs—whether priva-tized or not. For example, DTIC, which ac-counts for roughly one-quarter of NTIS sourcematerials, is planning to shift to an optical disk-based electronic printing-on-demand operation.This and similar actions by other Federal agen-

303

cies could have major implications for how andwhat information is transmitted to NTISand/or SupDocs. The opportunities to improvecost-effectiveness (e.g., via the information lifecycle with multi-format output) could be com-plicated if NTIS and SupDocs were privatized.

Finally, both NTIS and SupDocs operatewith no public appropriations for their basicsales functions. NTIS operates on a break-evenbasis with annual revenues and costs of roughly$22 million and no appropriation for the basicNTIS collection, archiving, clearinghouse, anddissemination functions. The SupDocs salesprogram is totally self-supporting, and in re-cent years has actually been returning a netannual profit of several million dollars on an-nual sales in the $70 million range. This makesit especially difficult to establish the cost-effectiveness of privatization.

Impact on the Private Marketplace

Most NTIS and SupDocs documents are notcopyrightable, since documents prepared byor for the Federal Government at public ex-pense cannot be copyrighted. This means thatany individual or organization can resell NTISand SupDocs reports without authorizationfrom or reimbursement to the government, andthat the government has no legal basis for pre-venting such sales. Indeed, some private ven-dors do resell various NTIS and SupDoCs doc-uments based on their own evaluation of themarketplace. Vendors need only buy one copyof the government document and can (and do)use it as camera-ready copy (with anew coverand title page). In this way, the vendor elimi-nates the keyboarding, layout, and composi-tion costs, which could otherwise be substan-tial. When documents are available in magnetictape format from SupDocs, some vendors buythe tapes and convert them into online formats,and more recently CD-ROM formats.

Thus privatizing NTIS and SupDocs wouldnot appear to make a difference at least withrespect to private marketplace availability ofpaper formats, since these are already readilyavailable at very nominal cost to any vendorwho wishes to resell or enhance these materials.

With respect to NTIS privatization, viewsof the information industry span a broad spec-trum, including those that oppose full privati-zation due to concern about adverse effects onthose firms that are already in the market ofreselling or adding value to NTIS documents.The same generic concern could apply as wellto SupDocs privatization.

Several private firms already realize severalmillion dollars in annual revenues from sell-ing the NTIS bibliography in electronic onlineformat and reselling various NTIS products.To the extent that NTIS (or SupDocs) privati-zation provided market advantages to a pro-spective contractor, such as the opportunity

to develop and sell value-added products andservices as long as certain core functions werecarried out, it could have adverse effects onthose firms that are or would like to resell orenhance government materials. A potentialproblem, from an industry point of view, is thatone firm (the contractor) would be granted apreferred competitive position by the Govern-ment. From the governmental and public ac-cess perspective, a potential problem is thatsignificant user groups could be priced out ofthe value-added market, unless there is somekind of effective “information lifeline’ or “in-formation safety net” protection.

There is also concern within the informationindustry about the competitive impacts of gov-ernmental electronic offerings. Possible effectsof NTIS and SupDocs electronic sales on theprivate information marketplace are discussedin a later section.

Reorganizing SupDocs as Part of aLegislative Printing Office

Another institutional possibility is to limitSupDocs to legislative branch informationproducts (NTIS would remain in the executivebranch). This legislative branch SupDocs alter-native would require statutory changes andwould presumably be part of a legislativebranch GPO (sometimes referred to as a Legis-lative Printing Office or LPO). The rationalefor an LPO is as follows.

304

At present, GPO is a statutory agency ofthe legislative branch of the government, butwith its chief officer (the Public Printer) ap-pointed by the President, and with roughlyseven/eighths of its total printing work donefor the executive branch. The split betweenlegislative and executive printing is about50:50 for the GPO main plant, and almost allprocured work is done for executive agencies.If key governmental process items (such as theFederal Register, Budget of the United States,passports, postal cards) are included with thecongressional work, then the legislative to ex-ecutive split would be about 75:25 at the mainplant.

One possible scenario would be to transferthe GPO procurement function to GSA in theexecutive branch, gradually phase out execu-tive branch filler work at the GPO mainplant(or place such work on an agency discretion-ary basis), and limit GPO’s inplant work to con-gressional and specified key governmentalitems. This alternative would eliminate anyseparation of powers issues, especially if thePublic Printer were made a congressionalrather than presidential appointment. This alsowould permit GPO to focus or refocus on legis-lative branch needs and avoid the frequentlyconflicting requirements of the executivebranch. GPO began as almost exclusively thelegislative branch printer, with the few execu-tive branch items produced as congressionaldocuments. But executive branch work hasgradually increased to the point today whereonly about one-eighth of total work is purelycongressional. This alternative might alsomake it somewhat easier for GPO to activelypursue a variety of electronic options for con-gressional information dissemination by focus-ing attention and resources on just one branchof government.

However, this so-called legislative branchalternative has several limitations. First, sep-arating the printing procurement functionfrom printing operations may, over time, re-duce the competence and effectiveness of theprocurement staff. Establishing a separate ex-ecutive branch printer (in addition to the ex-isting GPO) might solve this problem, but at

a substantial additional cost. Second, the costof congressional printing would increase sig-nificantly, all other things being equal. Execu-tive agency work done at the GPO main planthelps to take up slack capacity during periodsof lower congressional work load. GPO muststaff up to handle peak congressional workload, and thus executive branch work helps uti-lize some of this capacity during off-peakperiods. Without executive agency work, to-tal GPO costs would be spread over a smallerbase, thus increasing the per unit cost of theremaining work. The cost impact would be les-sened to the extent a legislative branch GPOwas able to retain adequate executive branchwork on a voluntary basis, perhaps partlythrough the use of special rates for GPO mainplant work that more closely approximate pro-cured printing rates (see discussion in chs. 4and 11). Third, the cost increases would prob-ably necessitate significant GPO labor forcereductions, which in the worst case could beas much as 40 percent of the main plant em-ployees (see ch. 4 for further discussion. )

A fourth potential problem is the reductionin congressional control over agency printingand information dissemination. While the ex-ecutive branch might view this as an advan-tage, congressional oversight committees mightfind it more difficult to keep abreast of agencyactivities, absent more effective reporting byand cooperation from the executive branch.While some executive agencies are critical ofwhat they perceive as inappropriate microman-agement by some oversight committees, it isnot clear whether the agencies (and OMB)would support other, substitute oversightmechanisms. Congress could address oversightconcerns, in part, by strengthening and res-tructuring committee jurisdictions (e.g., bycreating a Joint Committee on GovernmentInformation) and by statutory amendmentsproviding more specific guidance to the execu-tive agencies.

The implications for SupDocs are several.SupDocs is dependent on the central role ofGPO vis-a-vis all government printing, to beaware of what is being printed, assess marketpotential, ride the printing order for additional

305

copies as needed, and ensure proper distribu-tion to depository libraries. If responsibilityfor executive branch printing is moved to theexecutive branch, provision would need to bemade to ensure that functions now carried outby SupDocs for the executive branch are con-tinued. This could involve reorganizing exist-ing executive agency public information orprinting offices into agency sales offices, or cre-ating new offices if needed, all at what couldbe significant additional costs. Having theequivalent of multiple SupDocs offices through-out the government might complicate the in-dexing, cataloging, marketing, quality control,ease of public access to, and international ex-change of government documents. In addition,to preserve the integrity of the depository li-brary program, executive agencies would needto advise the legislative branch SupDocs oftheir publishing activities, and provision wouldhave to made to produce and pay for enoughcopies to meet depository library needs.

Consolidating NTIS with SupDocsand/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office” orGovernment Corporation

The consolidation of NTIS and SupDocs isa key element of government information leg-islation introduced in the past two Congresses.The consolidated entity could be located in ei-ther the legislative branch or executive branch.An NTIS-GPO consolidation in the legislativebranch has received more attention recently,in part as an alternative to NTIS privatiza-tion. As noted in chapter 11, the Public Printerhas publically stated his willingness to considerand implement this alternative, and the Librar-ian of Congress has suggested consolidatingNTIS with the Library of Congress. In the de-bate over NTIS privatization, some agencyofficials and users have stated a preference forNTIS-GPO consolidation over NTIS privati-zation.

NTIS-GPO consolidation would appear tooffer several significant advantages but alsocreate some problems. On the plus side, a con-solidation would retain NTIS as a govern-

mental entity, and this is thought to be criti-cally important by Federal science agencies.These agencies are very uncomfortable, fromprocedural, legal, and philosophic perspectives,with the prospect of dealing with a privatizedNTIS. While a consolidated NTIS, presumablylocated within GPO in the legislative branch,may not be ideal, it appears to be preferableto many when compared with privatization.Also, a consolidation would increase the pos-sibilities of economies of scale, and synergybetween NTIS and SupDocs marketing, sales,and distribution programs. A consolidationshould eliminate public confusion about theirrespective roles, and could lead to a more effi-cient and rationale approach to Federal infor-mation dissemination.

NTIS and SupDocs have a lot in common.They are both essentially resellers of informa-tion products generated by Federal missionagencies. They both operate on a financiallyself-sustaining basis (SupDocs actually madea significant profit in recent years), with nopublic appropriation except for specially man-dated activities. Both NTIS and SupDocs aresmall, although the SupDocs sales programhas about three times the total revenues (about$70 million per year versus about $22 millionfor NTIS). They both develop bibliographicproducts.

The major differences are that NTIS han-dles largely scientific and technical materialwith limited demand (10 copies per item) spreadover a large inventory (about 60,000-70,000items added yearly and a total inventory ofroughly 2 million titles), while SupDocs han-dles the entire range of government publica-tions, but selects items with a larger demand(typically, in the several hundreds to thousandsof copies per item) and maintains a muchsmaller inventory (about 20,000 titles). NTIShas a major archival responsibility, while Sup-Docs does not (although some of the deposi-tory libraries do).

With respect to technology, NTIS is con-strained due to the absence of a revolving fundor other mechanism to finance capital invest-ment in new technology (although this would

306

be partially remedied in pending legislation).Since SupDocs printing is done by GPO, Sup-Docs is an indirect beneficiary of any technol-ogy enhancements that GPO finances for itsown purposes out of the GPO revolving fund.Also, SupDocs can finance its own capital in-vestment needs out of the GPO revolving fundwith the cost recovered as a depreciationcharge against sales. It is also possible thatSupDocs (and, by extension, NTIS) would bepermitted to contribute some portion of netrevenues, if any, to the revolving fund to fi-nance new dissemination technology and ex-periments. In general, the combined activityand resource base of NTIS and SupDocs wouldappear to offer potential opportunities for test-ing implementation of new technologies (suchas CD-ROM, printing on demand) and market-ing techniques. A NTIS-GPO consolidationwould also appear to provide potentially fruit-ful cross-fertilization of staff expertise, andwould meet congressional concerns about re-taining direct control over vital Federal infor-mation dissemination functions.

The major potential problem would appearto be the actual transfer of NTIS from an ex-ecutive branch agency (Department of Com-merce) to a legislative branch agency (GPO).The Department and OMB are likely to opposethis alternative. It could be viewed as furtherexacerbating concerns about separation ofpowers and executive control. There would besome costs associated with the transition, al-though they might be minimal. The coopera-tion of the Federal science agencies would beessential to make this transfer work.

Rather than moving NTIS to the legislativebranch, SupDocs could be transferred to theexecutive branch and combined with NTIS.Legislation introduced in the past two Con-gresses would consolidate NTIS and SupDocs(along with a few other agency informationsales units) into a Government Information Of-fice to be established as an independent agencyof the executive branch. First of all, this legis-lation would transfer only SupDocs, and notthe printing procurement and inplant printingfunctions of GPO. Theoretically, the entireGPO could be transferred, although this ap-

pears unlikely so long as GPO operates as thecongressional printer (with highest priority as-signed to congressional work).

Part of the rationale for moving SupDocsto the executive branch is to minimize separa-tion of powers problems and facilitate relation-ships with executive agencies. It is not clearwhether separation of powers is really a prob-lem with respect to SupDocs functions. Theongoing debate over the applicability of Chadhav. INS to certain provisions of Title 44 of theU.S. Code has focused primarily on the con-stitutionally of the requirement for Joint Com-mittee on Printing advance approval of execu-tive agency printing and related activities, noton the constitutionality of SupDoc functions.Transfer of SupDocs or any or all of the restof GPO to the executive branch would be likelyto aggravate congressional concerns about con-trol over government information dissemina-tion policy. These concerns might be mitigated,to a degree, by strengthening congressionaloversight.

A change in name to ‘Government Informa-tion Office” would help demarcate the alreadywell advanced transition of the Federal Gov-ernment from a world of paper documents andreports to a world of information in all formats,electronic as well as paper and microfiche. Aname change need not be limited to an NTIS-SupDocs consolidation. On the down side, inthe American political system, there has al-ways been some reluctance to establish cen-tral governmental information offices, for fearthey will become or at least be perceived asgovernment information control or propagandainstruments. This of course need not and pre-sumably would not be the case for the institu-tional alternatives discussed above, but it isa concern that warrants attention.

Yet another possibility would be to estab-lish a Government Information Office as a gov-ernment corporation. This alternative has beenseriously proposed and studied for NTIS. TheNational Academy of Public Administrationhas reviewed the history and nature of NTISfunctions and concluded that NTIS met thecommonly accepted criteria for a government

307

corporation, including the need to: be revenue-producing, be self-supporting, and conduct alarge number of transactions with the public.The academy also concluded that, despite therequirement to be self-supporting, NTIS is notprovided the operational flexibility (for staff-ing and capital investment, in particular) nec-essary to respond to market forces. The HouseCommittee on Science, Technology, and Spacelargely concurred with the Academy’s find-ings, and has included the incorporation ofNTIS as a provision of the NBS Authoriza-tion Act for fiscal year 1989. (See ch. 11 fordiscussion.)

The government corporation approach forNTIS would appear to capture some of the ben-efits that had been suggested from an NTIS-SupDocs consolidation, especially with respectto capital investment. Also, providing NTISwith an explicit statutory charter presumablywould strengthen the ability of NTIS to carryout its mission with less interference fromOMB and others who have questioned the ex-istence of NTIS as a government entity. Onthe other hand, the corporation approach ascurrently proposed would not capture possi-ble marketing, staffing, and technology syn-ergies that might result from an NTIS-SupDocsconsolidation. Another alternative would beto extend the current “National Technical In-formation Corp. ‘‘ concept to include SupDocs(and perhaps some other related governmentactivities, such as those of the Consumer In-formation Center) to become a “National Gov-ernment Information Corp.”

A full analysis of these alternatives is be-yond the scope of this study but would neces-sitate consideration of all the factors discussedpreviously, including the implications for: thecost-effectiveness of NTIS and SupDocs func-tions; the intricate web of relationships be-tween NTIS, SupDocs, and the mission agen-cies which are the source of NTIS and SupDocssales items; the implementation of relevantstatutes including various provisions of Title44 of the U.S. Code; and the private sectorfirms that currently (or might in the future)make a market in reselling or adding value toNTIS and SupDocs materials. It should be

noted that in 1986, the Department of Com-merce not only recommended against whole-sale NTIS privatization, but also recom-mended against consolidation with GPO orcreation of a corporation.

Authorizing SupDocs or theConsolidated SupDocs/NTISto Produce and Disseminate

Electronic Formats

The convergence of several trends has openedup a window of opportunity for SupDocs, ora consolidated SupDocs/NTIS should thatalternative be implemented, with respect to theproduction and dissemination of Federal infor-mation in electronic formats as well as paperand microfiche. While paper is expected to bethe dominant format for years to come, theGAO survey results (see ch. 2, 4, and 5) docu-ment the transition that is already underway.The volume of Federal information productsin electronic formats is increasing rapidly.Also, automation of the document creationprocess in most Federal agencies is proceed-ing rapidly, such that electronic capture of theoriginal keyboarding should be possible a largepercentage of the time, given the necessarytechnical standards. GPO already receivesroughly 70 percent of incoming material in elec-tronic format, primarily magnetic tape, andhas converted entirely from hot type to elec-tronic photocomposition (between 1976-1986).GPO has the capability to accept input in awide range of floppy diskette formats, and isexperimenting with both dial-up desktop pub-lishing input and mainframe computer-basedelectronic data transfer. GPO electronic out-put is currently limited to several dozen mag-netic tape products, including some majorproducts such as the Congressional Record andFederal Register.

OTA’s independent printing consultant con-cluded that as much as 60 percent of the GPO’scurrent publications could be produced in anelectronic database-oriented format, and thatabout half of that, or 30 percent, is “releasa-ble” in electronic format in that the materialis: (1) suited for electronic receipt; (2) not con-

308

fidential or otherwise restricted; and (3) hasan audience with or access to the technologyneeded to use the material in electronic form.While one can debate these percentages, andthe methodologies used to estimate them, theresults suggest significant levels of potentialelectronic penetration. GPO has questioned thebasis for these estimates, but the difference,if any, cannot be resolved in the absence of adetailed review of a statistically valid sampleof GPO’s printed products. Such a review ap-pears to be warranted, and could be conductedby SupDocs.

With respect to NTIS, constraints on capi-tal investment have limited its deployment ofnew electronic technology. NTIS does serveas a clearinghouse for a variety of electronicformat (machine readable) products, includingabout:

. 300 computer software items;

. 800 numeric and statistical databases;

. 300 textual databases; and● 10 bibliographic databases, all provided

by mission agencies.

These represent only a small fraction of totalagency electronic products in these categories.NTIS could be positioned to take advantageof relevant technology applications under de-velopment and demonstration at various civil-ian and military agencies.

Some technologies appear to offer large po-tential for both SupDocs and NTIS. One ofthese is compact disk/read only memory (CD-ROM). The National Oceanographic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of theCensus, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)have prototyped CD-ROMs and found thatdisks with about 500-600 megabytes of data(equivalent to about 250,000 pages of double-

spaced typed text) can be recorded on a singledisk at a full cost of about $50/disk at a vol-ume of 600. This includes $15,000 for datapreparation (converting the electronic data intothe format suitable for CD-ROM), $5,000 forsoftware development (preparing the softwareneeded for CD-ROM access), and $10,000 forthe actual mastering of the first 600 disks. Ata larger volume of, say, 2,000, the total wouldincrease to about $40,000 but the per disk costwould drop to about $20. At a volume of 5,000,the total cost would be about $50,000 and perdisk cost about $10. SupDocs and/or NTIScould take a lead role in facilitating the prep-aration and dissemination of CD-ROMs for in-dividual agency databases and for a consortiaof agencies who might wish to place a varietyof databases on a single disk.

The combination of CD-ROMs, optical diskstorage for large scale archiving, and electronicprint-on-demand systems could revolutionizeNTIS and/or SupDocs dissemination opera-tions, especially for low volume, out-of-print,and/or reference or bibliographic material.While governmentwide standards for these(and other) technological applications are crit-ical, it is not clear to what extent centralizedproduction is more cost-effective. In otherwords, the conventional printing procurementmodel may not necessarily apply to electronicinformation product procurement. In general,however, once the content of a document, pub-lication, or other information product is cap-tured in a compatible electronic format, thenit is easy to manipulate the contents into a va-riety of outputs—paper, microfiche, and elec-tronic. In this way, the output formats can becost-effectively tailored to particular types ofproducts and user needs and capabilities. (Seechs. 3, 4, and 5 for further discussion. )

309

BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF SUPDOCS/NTIS ELECTRONICINFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Some broader implications of SupDocs/NTISelectronic dissemination, irrespective of theparticular institutional structure, are consid-ered in this section. The impact areas discussedinclude:

government productivity and cost-effec-tiveness,agency missions and the role of SupDocsand NTIS,private sector economy, andother areas.

Government Productivity andCost-Effectiveness

major continuing concern of governmentofficials and taxpayers is that governmentfunctions be conducted as cost-effectively aspossible, consistent with other governmentalobjectives such as public access and open gov-ernment. With respect to Federal informationdissemination and related activities, there ap-pear tO be substantial opportunities for Sup-Docs and NTIS to improve the productivityand cost-effectiveness of government informa-tion activities. This could occur directly

through their own activities and indirectly byencouraging or stimulating agency produc-tivity improvements, and without compromis-ing other important goals such as public ac-cess. Indeed, there is the possibility offinancing enhanced public access to Federalinformation largely out of productivity im-provements.

Numerous vendors and business users reportproductivity improvements of ty’pically 30 to50 percent and similar rates of return on in-vestment. Payback periods are in the 2 to 3year range. Various Federal agencies have pro-jected similar returns in justifying equipmentand systems acquisitions, and these estimatesshould be applicable to SupDocs and NTIS in-formation products.

These estimates do not include other impor-tant elements of cost avoidance, such as pa-

per and postage. Electronic publishing facili-tates the use of typeset text and tables forreports (or other documents), rather than type-written (or word processed) text and tables.The result is that the length of reports can bereduced by, on the average, about 35 percent,and thus the cost of printing (including paper)would be corresponding} reduced. The re-duced length (and weight) of the report wouldalso reduce the cost of postage for mailing thereport. Again, these kinds of savings shouldaccrue to SupDocs and NTIS information dis-semination as well as to individual missionagencies.

Another potential area of cost reductions forSupDocs and NTIS document sales involvesthe use of CD-ROMs for dissemination of sci-entific, statistical, and other kinds of informa-tion that are best suited for electronic formats.For example, the full texts of patents are cur-rently sold by the Patent and Trademark Of-fice (PTO) at a cost of $2,250 per week for pa-per format, and only $345 per week in magneticcomputer tape format, all priced to recover themarginal cost of reproduction. PTO estimatesthat the same information could be sold in CD-ROM format (one disk per week) for only $50per week, depending on sales volume, or about2 percent of the cost in paper format. TheNOAA, USGS, and Bureau of the Census haveestimated that scientific and statistical infor-mation totally unsuited for paper formatscould be provided on CD-ROM at about 1() per-cent or less of the cost of the same informa-tion in magnetic tape format ($50 for one CD-ROM compared to $500 to $625 for 4 or 5 mag-netic tapes at $125 each). These kinds of costreductions should apply as well to electronicproducts sold by SupDocs and NTIS.

However, the realization of these benefits bythe Federal Government is hampered by thegeneral lack of or confusion about commontechnical standards to ensure compatibilityand interconnectivity, inadequacy of effectivemechanisms to share expertise and experience.

310-.

and the like. As noted in chapters 2, 3, and 11,there are some efforts ongoing in all of theseareas, but the total effort appears to be mov-ing too slowly, especially when considering thesubstantial yearly investment of the FederalGovernment in these technologies and thelarge number of tests, demonstrations, and,operational applications. SupDocs and NTISelectronic dissemination programs could helpstimulate faster progress in these areas.

In addition to beneficial productivity im-pacts on the creators and disseminators of Fed-eral information, other alternatives that couldbe implemented by SupDocs and NTIS (suchas the governmentwide information indexing,see ch. 11) should help improve the produc-tivity of Federal (as well as other) users of Fed-eral information. At present, it is difficult andtime-consuming for many Federal employeesto determine what relevant information isavailable from elsewhere within their ownagency, let alone from other agencies. Whilethere are no known estimates of the total timespent searching for information, it must be sub-stantial. Moreover, while an improved indexto major government information (in all for-mats) is only one part of a total solution, itshould be of significant help if done well.

Estimating the productivity improvementsfrom SupDocs and NTIS electronic dissemi-nation activities (including related standards,innovation, and index initiatives) is very diffi-cult if not impossible. However, given the verylarge government investment in relevant areas,even a small productivity y improvement trans-lates into large savings or cost avoidance.

There are several ways to estimate savingsfor the government, although estimating anallocation of savings to SupDocs/NTIS versusthe individual mission agencies is difficult andbeyond the scope of this analysis. One way tocalculate savings is as a percentage of totalgovernment expenditures in relevant areas.Assuming that the government spends at least$6 billion annually on information dissemina-tion-related functions (see ch. 2), even just a10 percent productivity improvement, whichis at the very low end of private sector esti-

mates and experience, would translate into apotential $600 million per year productivityimprovement. Even if only partially realized,this would provide a substantial opportunityfor cost avoidance, budget reductions, and/ornew or improved dissemination activities. Forexample, a one percent productivity improve-ment would equate to $60 million per year,which by comparison is an amount about triplethe depository library program appropriation.

Other methods of estimating productivityimprovement also give significant results. Forexample, a conservatively estimated 30,000Federal employees are involved with informa-tion dissemination-related activities, as dis-cussed in chapter 11. Assuming an average sal-ary (including benefits) of $40,000 per year, thetotal cost would be $1.2 billion. Assuming fur-ther an average productivity improvement of25 percent when using electronic publishing(equates to a payback period of 4 years), thepotential productivity improvements or costavoidance would be about $300 million per yearfor Federal salaries alone. As another exam-ple, an estimated 100,000 scientific and tech-nical reports are produced by or for the Fed-eral Government each year. Assuming that theaverage report length is 125 double-spacedtypewritten pages and the average press runis 400 copies per report, then the total print-ing and postage cost per report would aver-age about $1,400 per report (at $3.50 per copyor 1.6 cents per page plus $1.50 postage) or$140 million total (for 100,000 reports). Usingthe estimated 35 percent savings figure, thepotential savings by using electronic publish-ing would be about $50 million annually forprinting and postage alone.

Agency Missions and the Role ofSupDocs and NTIS

As discussed throughout the report, Con-gress has assigned numerous information dis-semination responsibilities to Federal agenciesin the performance of their statutory missions.

In general, agency statutory missions wouldbe enhanced by those SupDocs/NTIS alterna-tives that facilitate and improve the dissemi-

311

nation of mission-specific information toagency clientele (e.g., users, researchers, me-dia, interest groups). To the extent this couldbe done more cost-effectively, agency missionswould also be enhanced. Overall, the scenariothat seems to have broadest support amongmission agencies is the alternative that retainsagency discretion to disseminate electronic in-formation directly to agency clients, but withthe central governmentwide disseminationoffices (SupDocs, NTIS, or a combinationthereof) having the discretion to include agencyitems in governmentwide sales, archiving, anddistribution programs. This is somewhat sim-ilar to the way paper documents and publica-tions are handled now. The agencies are ableto distribute printed copies directly to theirown clients. SupDocs ‘‘rides the printing or-der for additional copies for the GPO sales pro-gram and depository library distribution, if theparticular report is judged to be suitable forinclusion. NTIS receives scientific and tech-nical information (STI) documents from theagencies, and places the materials in the ar-chives for dissemination on demand.

At present, while many agency reports aretransmitted in electronic format to GPO forprinting, SupDocs does not disseminate elec-tronic formats (with the exception of somemagnetic tapes). NTIS, on the other hand, re-ceives and disseminates about 1,400 electronicformat products, although demand per prod-uct is generally low. Some agency officials ex-pressed concern about having SupDocs dis-seminate their electronic format products. Thisappears to reflect: a desire to retain controlover their own electronic products to the ex-tent possible; concern about possible compe-tition with SupDocs (and potential reductionin agency revenues from electronic sales); anda perception that SupDocs could not effectivelymaintain an electronic dissemination program.

On the other hand, under a decentralized sce-nario, NTIS and/or SupDocs activities wouldaugment and supplement, not supplant, agencyactivities. Also, agency sales of electronic in-formation products are, in many cases, quitemodest; so the involvement of NTIS and/or

SupDocs might actually stimulate greatersales and therefore greater dissemination ofagency materials. The agencies probably wouldnot receive any additional direct revenues(which would presumably be retained by NTIS/SupDocs, returned to the Treasury, or appliedto offset public appropriations elsewhere).

As for concern over the capability of Sup-Docs and NTIS to handle electronic formats,both SupDocs and NTIS would need to obtainthe necessary additional expertise. GPO as awhole is averaging about a 5 percent annualnet attrition rate (250 persons a year from acurrent base of about 5,000), which providesconsiderable flexibility to hire persons withelectronic information skills to the extentneeded. Beyond this, as many as 10 to 15 per-cent of the employees in several major GPOwork groups are at or near retirement age (seech. 4). There may be additional attritionthrough higher retirement rates in the next fewyears, which would provide GPO with addi-tional staffing flexibility. In sum, GPO is ina favorable position with respect to any nec-essary personnel adjustments within the cur-rent statutory ceiling on full time equivalentstaff levels. Changes in or removal of the ceil-ing would require congressional action. TheNTIS personnel situation is in a state of fluxdue to the uncertainties associated with theprivatization debate. Morale has been ad-versely affected, and many employees appar-ently are prepared to retire or transfer toanother Federal agency. A complete evalua-tion of NTIS personnel resources would seemprudent.

With respect to equipment (hardware, soft-ware, systems) needed for electronic dissemi-nation activities, there would likely be the needfor significant capital investment requirementson the part of SupDocs and NTIS for suchthings as:

●

●

●

additional desktop and high-end electronicpublishing units,graphics work stations,magnetic tape and floppy disk conversionand duplication equipment,

312

●

●

possibly online database support capabil-ity, andpossibly CD-ROM premastering equipment.

However, for GPO, the cost of these items is,in many cases, comparable or less than the costof conventional printing and binding equip-ment. GPO currently spends about 1 percentof total revenues on capital investment ($8 mil-lion out of $800 million), which is equivalentto about 4 percent of inplant revenues. Overtime, one scenario is a gradual shift in the GPOcapital expenditure budget from conventionalto electronic printing and publishing equip-ment. All major expenditures, whether for newconventional presses or CD-ROM premaster-ing equipment and the like, would need to becarefully scrutinized to validate need and cost-effectiveness relative to other options and tak-ing into account estimates of future demand.NTIS has not had a significant capital invest-ment program in the past, and would need acapital program to support electronic dissem-ination activities.

Should SupDocs and NTIS seek a significantrole in electronic dissemination, several otheractions appear to be prudent. One would bethe establishment of high level and well-staffedstrategic planning offices in SupDocs (or GPO)and NTIS that would include expertise in tech-nology, economics, marketing, and human re-sources, among other considerations. Theseoffices would need to be permanently estab-lished. The planning offices could be taskedwith developing short, medium, and long-rangeplans on a rolling basis. At GPO, the recentestablishment of an Office of Financial Policyand Planning appears to be a step in this direc-tion. Congress could require that periodic Sup-Docs and NTIS planning reports be submittedto the appropriate oversight, authorizing, andappropriations committees. A second actionwould be to enhance the SupDocs and NTISresearch, development, and demonstration pro-gram. The few pilot and research projectsunderway, while noteworthy, do not have thecritical mass necessary to place SupDocs andNTIS on a par with various of the Federal ex-ecutive agencies (such as the Navy, DTIC,USGS). If SupDocs and NTIS aspire to—or

Congress desires SupDocs and NTIS to take–a leadership role in such areas as technicalstandards and state-of-the-art technical appli-cations, then a more aggressive program ap-pears to be necessary. A third action wouldbe to further increase the profile of SupDocsand NTIS participation in various FederalGovernment standards-setting and technologydevelopment activities. SupDocs and NTIScould seek formal participation in these activ-ities, and promote or train from within or hirefrom the outside the best available qualifiedpersons to participate in these forums. (See chs.4, 5, and 7 for related discussion.)

Private Sector Economy

A major concern of the information indus-try, government, and others is how SupDocsand NTIS electronic dissemination programs,if implemented, would affect the economichealth of the U.S. private sector economy. Theprivate business sector has multiple interestsin Federal information dissemination. First,many businesses are users of Federal informa-tion for a wide variety of purposes. Second,the equipment manufacturers and systems in-tegrators sell the government the hardware,software, and related technologies and serv-ices that are needed to implement Federal in-formation dissemination systems. Third, theprinting industry sells composition, printing,and binding services to the government. Fourth,the information industry repackages, resells,and/or adds value to government information.

The interests of the business users of Fed-eral information are presumably genericallythe same as many other users—to get the in-formation when needed and at a reasonableprice. The larger businesses with greater re-sources are likely to be less sensitive to pricethan independent small businesses, and thelarger businesses also are better able to usethe information industry to obtain Federal in-formation on a resale or enhanced basis. Theequipment manufacturers and related compa-nies, while probably users of Federal informa-tion, are primarily interested in expanding and

313

developing the government market for theirtechnologies and services. Similarly, the print-ing industry largely views the Federal Gov-ernment as another market segment for salesof printing services. The information industry,however, has a more complex view of its rela-tionship to the Federal information infra-structure.

On the one hand, that portion of the infor-mation industry that makes a market in Fed-eral information is dependent on obtaining theinformation on a timely and relatively inexpen-sive basis so that it can be repackaged, resold,and/or enhanced at a competitive price. If Fed-eral information is available too slowly, at toohigh a price, and/or in a difficult format, thepotential market value and profit potential ofrepackaging and/or enhancing that informa-tion declines accordingly. Therefore there isa clear interest in obtaining Federal informa-tion on a timely and reasonable cost basis. Theindustry appears to oppose (along with others)pricing of Federal information to recover someor all of the cost of developing the information,because, in many instances, that would makeit too costly to repackage, resell, and/or en-hance the information at a profit. The indus-try (and others, including libraries, research-ers, public interest groups, and the like) notethat the development of the information is paidfor with taxpayer dollars, so charging for theinformation development costs would amountto paying twice.

The conflict arises when government infor-mation is made available in electronic form.The information industry apparently does notsee paper formats as a competitive threat, butnot so for electronic formats. This is becauseit is the electronic form (and format) that per-mits the information industry and others torepackage and enhance the information. Thususers who want and can afford the advantagesof electronic information (e.g., such as timelysearch and retrieval capability) provide the pri-mary market for information industry prod-ucts and services. As a result, proposals tomake Federal information available in elec-tronic form directly from the government (e.g.,via individual agencies and the depository li-

brary program as well as SupDocs and NTIS)have raised serious concerns on the part ofOMB, information industry trade associations,and some individual companies.

The primary information industry concernis over a possible adverse impact of government-provided electronic information on informationmarket opportunities. OMB and informationindustry representatives make a distinction be-tween government dissemination of Federalinformation in raw electronic form (e. g., on amagnetic tape or floppy disk) without softwareenhancements or searching aids, which OMBand the industry representatives support, andgovernment dissemination of enhanced or so-called “value added” information, which atleast some in OMB and the industry oppose.This places information industry companiesin the position of advocating dissemination ofraw electronic formats which they can use asresellers and value adders (because the elec-tronic formats are much cheaper to work withand minimize costly rekey boarding), but appar-ently resisting sales of enhanced electronic for-mats by individual agencies or government-wide dissemination agencies (such as SupDocsor NTIS) directly to the public.

The industry position raises several issues.First, historically the government has pro-duced and disseminated a wide range of en-hanced or value-added information productsin paper format. These include, for example,statistical analyses and projections (e.g., fromthe Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau ofthe Census), natural resource trends and pro-jections (e.g., from USGS), domestic and in-ternational commodity demand, supply, andprice fluctuations (e.g., from the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture), and domestic and inter-national market trends and forecasts (e.g., fromthe Department of Commerce). Thus the gov-ernment has a long-established role in provid-ing enhanced information products.

Second, increasingly, users are seeking theseinformation products in electronic formats, inorder improve the timeliness, accessibility,and/or manipulability of the information,and/or because the information is available

314—

only in an electronic format. Limiting the gov-ernment to electronic dissemination of only theraw information would be akin to distributingthe words of a book without the page and chap-ter formats or the table of contents and index,or to distributing statistical data without thetables, figures, or summary presentations andanalyses. Limiting the government’s role toraw electronic data could aggravate concernsabout equity of information access and impairthe performance of agency missions and gov-ernmental functions.

Third, although OMB circular A-130 assertsthat information dissemination is subject toOMB circular A-76 on contracting out, andthat “maximum feasible reliance” should beplaced on the private sector, neither of thesecirculars nor any other governmentwide pol-icy guidance define under what conditions en-hanced or value-added electronic informationproducts are inherently or appropriately gov-ernmental versus commercial in nature. (Seech. 11 for further discussion.)

In terms of the various alternatives dis-cussed in chapter 11, it does not appear thatthe business community has any serious ob-jections to and indeed, supports technicalstandards, innovation centers, improved In-formation Resources Management (IRM), andelectronic FOIA (also see ch. 9) as they relateto information dissemination. Many of thesewould benefit the business community as tax-payers through improved government produc-tivity, and as corporate citizens interested inan open government. The governmentwide in-formation index and electronic press releaseservice (also see ch. 10) likewise appear to raiserelatively minor objections, although informa-tion industry representatives have noted thatthese offerings could be (and to some extentalready are) provided by private vendors in-dependently or under contract to the govern-ment. The major industry objections seem toarise with respect to electronic disseminationof enhanced Federal information via SupDocs,NTIS, and DLP (also see chs. 6 and 7), and alsoby mission agencies with respect to specificenhanced information products that are per-ceived as having significant market value.

Analysis of possible economic impacts sug-gests the following general results. The gen-eral business user community would appearto, if anything, benefit from the availabilityof enhanced electronic formats via SupDocsand/or NTIS, especially small business. (Smallbusiness might also benefit from depositorylibrary dissemination.) Business users alreadyare the major customers of both SupDocs andNTIS, accounting for about 75 percent of Sup-Docs subscription sales customers, 45 percentof SupDocs publication sales customers, and65 percent of NTIS customers.

Except as users of Federal information (e.g.,for strategic planning or research and devel-opment purposes), it does not appear that theinformation technology equipment and serv-ices industry or the printing industry wouldbe significantly affected. The information tech-nology industry already realizes conservatively$8 billion per year in sales to the Federal Gov-ernment, and it is hard to see how this wouldbe affected by SupDocs/NTIS electronic dis-semination. Also, even the $8 billion is but asmall fraction (about 4 percent) of the $200 bil-lion annual U.S. market (for computer and busi-ness equipment, software, and services). Like-wise, the U.S. printing industry’s currentFederal market share is about $600 million an-nually or roughly one percent of total annualindustry revenues of about $55 billion. Con-ceivably, this market share could decreaseslowly over time, should SupDocs/NTIS in-crease electronic products at the expense ofpaper products. However, the impact on theprinting industry’s revenues would appear tobe marginal to insignificant.

The information industry is the one areawhere some adverse economic impact mightbe anticipated. While the information indus-try includes a variety of traditional paper doc-ument and microform services, the most dy-namic and dominant sector of the industry isthe online database business. CD-ROM busi-ness may also become significant, but todayis just emerging as a viable electronic format.The online database industry provides a rea-sonable basis for estimating the relative im-

315

pact of SupDocs/NTIS enhanced electronicofferings.

The growth of the online database marketsegment of the information industry has beenphenomenal. From less than $500 million inannual revenues in 1978, this segment hasgrown to about $3 billion total revenues in 1987and is projected to reach about $4 billion bythe 1990-1991 time frame. This reflects, in part,an increase in the number of databases, fromabout 400 in 1979-1980, to 1,350 in 1982-1983to about 2,900 in 1986, and about 3,500 in 1987.As of early 1987, financial and credit informa-tion accounted for almost three-fifths of all on-line database revenues. Business and indus-trial information (including real estate andeconomics) accounted for about another one-fifth. Legal information accounted for aboutone-tenth, and scientific and technical infor-mation for about one-twentieth. This leavesabout 5 percent for all other types of informa-tion, including library support (about 2 per-cent), consumer (about 1 percent), and govern-mental (about 1 percent) information. Thus,government information per se appears todirectly represent a very small portion of to-tal online database revenues. However, itshould be noted that some of the other typesof databases presumably utilize governmentinformation, although not as a major productoffering.

Taking as a rather improbable example, ifone-fifth of the NTIS and SupDocs sales wereconverted to online database sales, this wouldamount to about $20 million annually, or lessthan one percent of the 1987 online industry,a very small segment of the total online mar-ket. In reality, it would take NTIS/SupDoc sev-eral years to reach $20 million annual onlinerevenues, if then. By that time, say 1990-1991,the online industry likely would have grownto $4 to 5 billion and the NTIS/SupDocs mar-ket share would be down to less than one-halfof one percent.

Thus it would not appear that SupDocs/NTIS offering of electronic formats would poseany significant competitive or economic threatto the online industry as a whole. However,

the hypothetical $20 million SupDocs/NTISmarket share would be somewhat more signif-icant (about 4 percent) when compared to thecombined market share of legal, scientific andtechnical, and purely governmental online serv-ices (all grouped together as loosely governm-ental, about 15 percent of the total onlinemarket), and would be very significant whencompared to the purely governmental segmentalone. SupDocs/NTIS involvement in enhancedelectronic dissemination is not a realisticthreat, or even a significant potential competi-tor, to the information industry as a whole, butcould have a significant impact on the smallsegment of the industry and those relatively

few firms that specialize in government infor-mation.

Of course, the impact need not necessarilybe negative. The availability of enhanced elec-tronic products may open up new opportuni-ties for repackaged and further enhanced pri-vate offerings and could stimulate the overallmarket, with a net gain for the private firms.Moreover, there is also the option of govern-ment contracting with various of these firms.

The online Congressional Record illustrateshow commercial vendors could be involved asgovernment contractors. The Record is printedby GPO, sold by SupDocs, and distributed inpaper (and some microform) to members ofCongress, congressional committees and of-fices, other designated government officialsand agencies, and participating depositorylibraries. GPO also sells magnetic tapes of theRecord to vendors. Vendors then enhance thedatabase and place the Record online as a com-mercial offering, at typical yearly subscriptionrates of $3,000. As discussed in more detailin chapters 4, 7, and 8, depository libraries andothers have expressed strong interest in theRecord online, but many cannot afford thecommercial rates.

One alternative would be for GPO, the HouseInformation Systems office, the Library ofCongress, or some other congressional agencyto provide the Record online at no or reducedcharges to the libraries. However, anotheralternative would be for Congress to contract

316

with one or more vendors for some or all of thisservice. Vendors have indicated that theywould offer a heavily discounted bulk rate forthe depository library program. Indeed, a pi-lot project testing this concept is underwaywith 50 depository libraries participating. Forexample, for 1,100 access accounts with a max-imum simultaneous sign-on of 70 libraries, theestimated annual fee would be about $300 perlibrary, or only 10 percent of the full rate. Ifthe number of simultaneous sign-on librarieswere 280, the annual fee would be about $1,000,which is still only one-third of the full rate. Thistype of scenario could benefit both the librariesand the industry. Nonetheless, the possibility—however remote—of adverse effects on inno-vation and competition in the industry is yetanother reason for consideration of congres-sional policy alternatives discussed in chap-ter 11 (and in ch. 8 with regard to congressionalinformation and ch. 7 on the depository libraryprogram).

Other Implications

Electronic dissemination of Federal informa-tion by SupDocs and NTIS has implicationsfor several other areas. These areas are sum-marized briefly below.

State/local government use. OTA’s commis-sioned research2 on state/local governmentuse of Federal information concluded that cur-rent Federal systems for disseminating infor-mation are not adequately serving state/localneeds. State/local officials were skeptical aboutmajor government reorganization and point tofailed state efforts to establish strongly cen-tralized information dissemination offices.However, officials were generally supportiveof alternatives such as the electronic informa-tion index, common technical standards (aslong as they were developed with meaningfulstate/local participation), and other measuresto improve access to Federal information inall formats—including electronic.

2Mark Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, and Barbara Lewton,‘‘Perspectives of State and Local Governments, OTA contrac-tor paper, October 1987.

The dissemination of electronic formats bySupDocs and NTIS should improve the abil-ity of State and local governments to learnabout and obtain desired Federal information.In order to help ensure that State/local infor-mation needs are considered, SupDocs andNTIS could include representatives of State/lo-cal governments as participants in user fo-rums, marketing surveys, and advisory panelsfor electronic dissemination. The related activ-ities of some Federal mission agencies, suchas the Bureau of the Census and the Agricul-tural Extension Service, could be used as pro-totypes for SupDocs and NTIS. Also, severalStates have their own innovative electronic dis-semination activities, which may be adapta-ble for use by SupDocs and NTIS as well asFederal mission agencies.

Access by disabled persons. Another area ofparticular note is the potential of electronic for-mats to significantly improve access to Fed-eral information by physically disabled per-sons. OTA’s staff research3 found that manyimpaired individuals are handicapped with re-spect to obtaining Federal information, for ex-ample, because paper formats cannot be readby the blind (with the exception of the limitedamount of material in braille) or manipulatedby those with serious impairment of the up-per extremities. With the advent of Federalinformation in electronic form, the potentialexists to geometrically increase the amount ofinformation accessible to disabled personsthrough the use of specially adapted microcom-puters, optical disks, floppy diskettes, and re-lated electronic technology.

The dissemination of electronic formats bySupDocs and NTIS should improve the abil-ity of disabled persons to obtain and use Fed-eral information, as would electronic dissemi-nation by Federal mission agencies. Electronicaccess could significantly increase the func-tional mobility, capability, and productivityof these individuals.

3Carol Nezzo, “Access to Federal Information by PhysicallyHandicapped Persons,” OTA staff paper, June 1987.

317

The primary technological window for disa-bled persons is the microcomputer. Throughuse of a microcomputer, disabled persons canaccess online databases, electronic mail andbulletin boards, CD-ROMs, and the like. Micro-computers can be adapted to make them use-able through special applications software,special systems software, and hardware adap-tations or devices (such as a keyguard, key-latch, optical printer, over and undersized key-board, or smart keyboard) that permit thedisabled person to use standard software run-ning on a standard microcomputer.

The keys to realizing this potential are: 1)the availability y of Federal information in elec-tronic formats; 2) the availability of relativelylow-cost microcomputers and adaptive soft-ware and devices; 3) the development of stand-ards for microcomputer keyboards and physi-cal design to ensure that microcomputers arecompatible with adaptive devices; and 4) thedevelopment of standards on text markup andpage description. Items 2 and 3 above are be-ing implemented through the joint efforts ofthe disabled community, equipment manufac-turers, researchers, and Federal agencies (espe-cially the General Services Administration,Veterans Administration, and Department ofEducation). SupDocs and NTIS could play asignificant role in items 1 and 4, along withthe mission agencies and the National Bureauof Standards. In order to help ensure that theneeds of disabled persons are met, disabled per-sons could be included in SupDocs and NTISuser forums, marketing surveys, and advisorypanels.

Electronic archiving. To be complete, the dis-position of information should be included asan integral part of the information life cycle.The National Archives and Records Adminis-tration has responsibility for archiving of Fed-eral records that have permanent value. NARAarchives records in all standard formats—including paper, microform, and machine read-able. As the Federal agencies increase their useof electronic formats, archival procedures willneed to be continuously reviewed and updatedto ensure that the accuracy, integrity, and com-

pleteness of the records are maintained evenwhen in electronic form.

NARA is in the process of issuing updateddraft regulations on the maintenance, reten-tion, and disposition of electronic records. Theproposed regulations will cover such topics as:

●

●

●

●

●

creation and use of databases and numericdata files, including the need for adequateand up-to-date documentation;creation and use of text information in of-fice automation systems;selection and maintenance of electronicstorage media, including consideration oflongevity, cost, portability, and the like:retention of electronic records; anddestruction of electronic records.

The implications of SupDocs and NTIS salesof electronic formats are two-fold. First, ideally,technical standards should be consistent throughall stages of the information life cycle—fromcreation to processing to dissemination to dis-position. SupDocs and NTIS involvement inelectronic dissemination, along with missionagencies, could provide an opportunity to helpensure that dissemination needs are fully con-sidered. Second, to the extent SupDocs andNTIS offer databases, numeric data files, andthe like in a variety of electronic storage me-dia, SupDocs and NTIS sales programs couldinclude a larger percentage of Federal infor-mation that currently is available primarilyonly through Freedom of Information Act re-quests (for active databases) or searches ofNARA archives (for inactive and archiveddatabases).

International leadership. OTA's commissionedresearch4

on foreign government informationdissemination activities concluded that theU.S. Government currently has a leadershipposition with respect to electronic dissemina-tion, followed by the European Economic Com-munity, Canada, other European nations, andJapan in that order. SupDocs and NTIS in-volvement in electronic dissemination could

‘Thomas B. Rile~’, “A Survey of International Trends inGovernment Information Dissemination,” OTA contractor pa-per, November 1987.

318

help further strengthen this leadership posi-tion through:

●

●

●

SupDocs/NTIS participation (along withother Federal agencies) in internationalstandards-setting activities,SupDocs/NTIS demonstrations of how le-gal and institutional protections for pub-lic access can be extended to an electronicinformation environment, andan enhanced SupDocs/NTIS role in stim-ulating the domestic economy through im-proved government information dissemi-nation and the creation of new value-addedopportunities for the information industry.

On the other hand, there is some concern thatwith a strengthened SupDocs/NTIS role, U.S.Government information might become evenmore accessible to adversaries. As it is, for-eign nations and corporations have much eas-ier access to U.S. information than does theU.S. Government (and corporations) to foreigninformation. Since information is an importanttool in international economic and politicalcompetition, further increases in the informa-tion gap could adversely affect the U.S. com-petitive position. While this concern has beenstrongly articulated by U.S. military and in-telligence agencies, the factual basis has notbeen well established.

The institutional, technical/management,and policy alternatives considered in this re-port are focused on the dissemination of “pub-lic” information, defined as Federal informa-tion that is not classified, proprietary, orprivate in nature (or subject to any other ex-emptions under the Freedom of InformationAct). Thus, for example, classified informationis screened out of SupDocs and NTIS sales pro-grams at the outset, so greater involvementof these dissemination agencies in electronicdissemination should have no effect on foreignaccess to U.S. Government classified infor-mation.

Concern has also been expressed about dis-semination of Federal information that is un-classified, but that is subject to U.S. exportcontrol laws. Here again, the governmentwidedissemination agencies such as SupDocs and

NTIS are secondary sources of information.The original sources are the mission agenciesthemselves. Two problems have arisen. Oneis the concern that foreign nations who are sub-ject to export controls may be able to get re-stricted Federal information from third part yforeign nations or companies or from U.S. do-mestic nongovernmental sources. A second isthat the secondary dissemination agencies maynot fully implement restrictions on sourceagency information. While these may be legiti-mate policy problems, they exist irrespectiveof the format of the information. Access viathird parties (whether foreign or domestic) isvery difficult to control at best, and electronicdissemination could aggravate this problem.However, limiting the roles of SupDocs/NTIS(as well as the mission agencies) in electronicinformation dissemination would run a highrisk of handicapping U.S. domestic companies(and the U.S. public) and U.S. allies far morethan U.S. adversaries. As for SupDocs andNTIS compliance with export control require-ments, interagency policy coordination wouldseem to be the appropriate avenue rather thanacross-the-board limitations on electronic dis-semination. Only a very small percentage ofSupDocs and NTIS materials would seeminglybe subject to export controls in the first place.

A final, and perhaps most difficult, dimen-sion of concern involves unclassified and un-restricted, but so-called ‘‘sensitive’ Federalinformation. Some Department of Defense offi-cials have argued that certain unclassified, un-restricted Federal information, such as economicor agricultural statistics when aggregated anddisseminated in electronic formats (especiallyonline databases), becomes sensitive for na-tional security purposes. Sensitive means thatforeign adversaries would gain significant ad-vantages from accessing the information inelectronic form, presumably on a more timelyand integrated basis than would otherwise bepossible. Defense and intelligence agency ef-forts to monitor foreign access to U.S. com-mercial and governmental unclassified onlineelectronic databases have met with heavy op-position from the civilian agencies, library andresearch communities, and U.S. information

319

industry. The industry has responded thatsuch monitoring and potential control of un-classified, legally unrestricted Federal infor-mation is not only a threat to open governmentand a freely competitive marketplace, butcould have a seriously adverse economic effecton the industry. Nonetheless, a significantlyenhanced SupDocs/NTIS role in electronic dis-semination could aggravate defense commu-nity concerns.

Related issues are examined in five priorOTA reports:

● Federal Government Information Tech-

nology: Management, Security, and Con-gressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297, Feb-ruary 1986;The Regulatory Environment of Science,OTA-TM-SET-34, February 1986;Commercial Newsgathering From Space,OTA-TM-ISC-40, May 1987Defending Secrets, Sharing Data, OTA-CIT-31O, October 1987;Science, Technology, and the First Amend-ment, OTA-CIT-369, January 1988.

These reports should be consulted for furtherdiscussion.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Acknowledgments

OTA acknowledges with appreciation the con-tributions of numerous individuals and organiza-tions to this report. The contributions ranged fromreview of draft materials to participation in meet-ings and workshops to the provision of technicalinformation. The views expressed in the report are,however, those of OTA and not necessarily thoseof participants, reviewers, and other contributors.

The participants in several OTA project work-ing groups are listed below, followed by listingsof reviewers and other contributors, with separatelistings for the U.S. Government Printing Office,General Accounting Office, and other OTA staff(in addition to those listed in the front of the re-port). Note that two OTA contractors, StephenFrantzich of Congressional Data Associates andJacob Ulvila of Decision Science Consortium, Inc.,participated in most working groups.

A. Project Working Group Participants

1. Federal Agency Information DisseminationWorking Group

2, Information Industry Working Group3. Federal Statistical Agency Working Group4. Survey Research Working Group5. Government Printing Office and Joint

Committee on Printing Working Group6. Library Working Group

1. Federal Agency Information DisseminationWorking Group(December 12, 1986)

Robin AtkissChairmanFederal Publishers Committee

John CavanaughManagerElectronic Systems DivisionGovernment Printing Office

Henry FreedmanContractorElectronet Information Systems Corporation

Minge BishopReprographics Program ManagerDepartment of the Air Force

Earl JosephContractorAnticipatory Sciences Incorporated

John KarpovichBranch HeadPlans, Policy, and TechnologyNavy Publications and Printing Service

Henry LowensternAssociate Commissioner forPublicationsBureau of Labor Statistics

Joseph MihokovichActing Director for Bibliographic andDocument ServicesNational Technical information Service

R.F. Milwee, Jr.Director of PublicationsDepartment of the Army

Kurt MolholmAdministratorDefense Technical information Center

Bruce ScaggsAsst. Public Printer forOperations and ProcurementGovernment Printing Office

Barry SchaefferContractor

Forrest WilliamsProject Coordinator, DataUsers DivisionBureau of the Census

2. Information Industry Working Group(JuIy 31, 1987)

Margaret GrisdelaPresidentCharles E. Simon and Company

Karen MyersGovernment Affairs RepresentativeElectronic Data Systems Corporation

Peyton NealPresidentPRN Associates

323

324— . .

David PeytonDirector of Government RelationsInformation Industry Association

Ron PlesserAttorneyNash, Railsback and Plesser

Alice DensonManager of Internal AffairsAssociation of Data Processing Service

Organizations

Morris SchurProgram Development ManagerEastman Kodak

Mark VonderhaarProduct Development ManagerCongressional Information Service, inc.

3. Federal Statistical Agency Working Group(July 27,1987)

Marie ArganaAssistant Division ChiefBureau of the Census

Tom BoldDirectorOffice of Programs, Markets, and AcquisitionNational Technical Information Service

Constance CitroStudy Director, Comittee on National

StatisticsNational Academy of Sciences

Henry LowensternAssociate CommissionerBureau of Labor Statistics

Stan ProchaskaChief, Special Programs DivisionDepartment of Agriculture

Katherine WallmanExecutive DirectorCounsel of Professional Associations on

Federal Statistics

John MountsChairmanFederal Publishers Committee

4. Survey Research Working Group(July 23,1987)

Brenda DervinChair, Department of communicationsOhio State University

Larry HerrmannGeneral Accounting

Peter HernonProfessorSimmons College

Stuart KaufmanGeneral Accounting

Charles McClureProfessorSyracuse University

Judith MyersLibrarian

Office

Office

University of Houston Library

5. U.S. Government Printing Office and JointCommittee on Printing Working Group(August 4,1987)

Jim BradleyProfessional Staff MemberJoint Committee on Printing

Roy BreimonProfessional Staff MemberJoint Committee on Printing

Dean CostonAssistant to the Staff DirectorCommitte on House Administration

Bernadine HoduskiProfessional Staff MemberJoint Committee on Printing

Stuart FossExecutive Advisor to the Public PrinterGovernment Printing Office

Gerald KleimanProfessional Staff MemberJoint Committee on Printing

Faye PadgettAssistant Staff DirectorJoint Committee on Printing

Mitchell PhelanChief, Document Technical Support GroupGovernment Printing Office

Andrew ShermanStaff Assistant, Financial Policy and PlanningGovernment Printing Office

John WenstrupAuditorJoint Committee on Printing

—-

5. Library Working Group(July 28, 1987)

Kaye GapenDirectorUniversity of Wisconsin Libraries

James NelsonState Librarian and CommissionerKentucky Department of Libraries and

Archives

Diane SmithFederal Documents LibrarianPennsylvania State University Libraries

Susan TulisDocuments LibrarianUniversity of Virginia Law Library

Julia WallaceHead, Government Documents DepartmentMinneapolis Public Library and Information

Center

B. Reviewers and Other Contributors

1. General Reviewers/Contributors2. GPO Reviewers/Contributors3. GAO Reviewers/Contributors4. Other OTA Staff Reviewers/contributors

1. General Reviewers/Contributors

Allan AdlerAmerican Civil Liberties Union

Andrew AinesConsultant

Marie G. ArganaBureau of the Census

Robin AtkissFederal Publishers Committee

Jaia BarrettAssociation of Research Libraries

Patricia BergerNational Bureau of Standards

J. E. BieseckerU.S. Geological Survey

Ben BlankenshipDepartment of Agriculture

Tom BoldNational Technical Information Service

325.——— —

Jane BortnickCongressional Research Service

Francis J. Buckley, Jr.Detroit Public Library

Kay BulowDepartment of Commerce

Sally BurkeNational Library of Medicine

James H. BurrowsNational Bureau of Standards

Joseph CaponioNational Technical Information Service

William McCarenU.S. NewswireEleanor ChaseUniversity of Washington

Joseph ClarkNational Technical Information Service

David O. CookeDepartment of Defense

Ben CooperPrinting Industries of America

Dean CostonCommittee on House Administration

Tom CoxNational Technical Information Service

Joseph G. CoyneDepartment of Energy

Mary CulnanThe American University

John CzeknerDepartment of the Army

Melvin S. DayHerner Company

Adelaide Del FrateNational Aeronautics and Space

Administration

F. Anne DiamondLibrary of Michigan

Richard EhlkeCongressional Research Service

Paul EstaverNational Institute of Justice

326

John J. ElsbreeNational Technical

Col. John V. FerryDepartment of the

David Farber

Information Service

Army

Department of Commerce

Susan FinsenCongressional Research Service

Russell ForteDepartment of Agriculture

Stephen FrantzichCongressional Data Associates

Henry B. FreedmanConsultant

Robert GalpinDepartment of Commerce

Kaye GapenUniversity of Wisconsin Libraries

Robert GellmanSubcommittee on Government Information,

Justice, and Agriculture,U.S. House of Representatives

Henry J. GioiaDepartment of Defense

Patricia GoldsteinPublic Citizen

Harry HammittAccess Reports

Robert HansonLegi-Slate, Inc.

Mark P. HaselkornUniversity of Washington

Jim HawkinsEastman Kodak Company

Stephen M. HayesUniversity Libraries, Notre Dame

Philip HaymondDepartment of the Interior

Anne HeanueAmerican Library Association

Peter HernonSimmons College

Clyde HorduskyState Library of Ohio

Toni HouseU.S. Supreme Court

Rosamond JacobSt. Paul Public Library

Sarah T. KadecConsultant

Stanley KalkusWashington Navy Yard

John J. KarpovichNavy Publications and Printing Service

Gail KohlhorstGeneral Services Administration

Elizabeth KnauffDepartment of the Treasury

Maurice St. LaurentEastman Kodak Company

Bernard G. LazorchakJoint Committee on Printing

Terrence J. LeahyMintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and

Popeo, P.C.

Armand R. LienardDepartment of the Air Force

Henry LowensternBureau of Labor Statistics

George LordJoint Council of Unions, U.S. Government

Printing Office

Jean LoupUniversity of Michigan

Marilyn MarbrookBureau of Justice Statistics

Katherine MawdsleyUniversity of California, Davis

Sandra McAninchUniversity of Kentucky Libraries

Marilyn McLennanDepartment of Commerce

Charles McClureSyracuse University

Adoreen McCormickLibrary of Congress

Francis McDonough and staffGeneral Services Administration

327

E. J. McFaulU.S. Geological Survey

Michael F. McGrathDepartment of Defense

Gary L. McMullin

Department of the Army

Joseph D. MihokovichNational Technical Information Services

David MitchellDepartment of the Army

Kurt N. MolholmDefense Technical Information Center

Sandy I. MortonSpecial Libraries Association

John E. Mounts and membersFederal Publishers Committee

Karen MyersElectronic Data Systems Corp.

Peyton NealPRN Associates

Burt Newl inDepartment of Defense

Richard Oleszewski and staffJoint Committee on Printing

James H. PaulCommittee on Science, Space. and TechnologyU.S. House of Representatives

Gary R. P e e t eUniversity of California, Berkleley

David PeytonInformation lndustry Association

David PlocherOMB Watch

William J. PoadLester B. Knight and Associates

Dana PrattLibrary of Congress

Shirley RadackNational Bureau of Standards

Mary RedmanNew York State Library

Franklin S. ReederOffice of Management and Budget

Karen RenningerVeterans Administration

Henry W. RieckenCouncil on Library Resources

James P. RileyFederal Library and Information Center

Committee

John RoachDepartment of the Army

Michael M. RobertsEDUCOM

Hope RobinsonDepartment of the Army

Ken RosenbergNational Technical information Service

Ernest RussellNational Labor Relations Board

Judy RussellRussell Associates

John A. SchmehlDepartment of Energy

Elliott SiegalNational Library of Medicine

Kent A. SmithNational Library of Medicine

Sandra SmithNational Center for Health Statistics

J. Timothy SpreheOffice of Management and Budget

John P. SpringettDepartment of Defense

Ruth Anne StewartLibrary of Congress

Herbert StrenzDrake University

Nell StricklandDepartment of the Army

Tony TatumDepartment of the Army

Charles F. TreatDepartment of Commerce

Susan TulisUniversity of Virginia Law School Library

328

Philip Van De VoordeIowa State University Library

Mark VonderhaarCongressional Information Service, Inc.

Julia WallaceMinneapolis Public Library and Information

Center

Camille WanatUniversity of California, Berkeley

Claudine J. WeiherNational Archives and Records Administration

Forrest B. WilliamsBureau of the Census

Roxanne WilliamsDepartment of Agriculture

2. U.S. Government Printing OfficeReviewers/Contributors (partial listing)

Ralph Kennickell, Jr.Public Printer

M. Joseph CannonAssistant Public Printer, Financial Policy and

Planning

Robert G. CoxCustomer Service Department

William H. CoxOperations and Procurement

Russell DuncanProduction Department

Janet EricksonInformation Technology Program

Stuart M. FossExecutive Advisor to the Public Printer

Donald E. FossedalSuperintendent of Documents

Paul GianniQuality Control

Joseph E. JeniferDeputy Public Printer

James JoynerCustomer Service

William F. KlughSpecial Assistant

Improvement

Department

for Productivity

Donald LaddProduction Department

June MalinaDocuments Marketing

Deanna E. MarlowOffice of the Executive Advisor

Joseph McClaneLibrary Inspection Team

Charles McKeownDocuments Marketing

R. A. MorrisonController

Grant MoyGeneral Counsel

Mitchell PhelanDocuments Technical Support Group

Samuel B. ScaggsAssistant Public Printer, Operations and

Procurement

Robert SchwenkProduction Department

Mark ScullyLibrary Programs Service

Andrew ShermanFinancial Policy and Planning

Drew SpaldingDeputy General Counsel

Tom SullivanPrinting Procurement Department

Bonnie TrivizasLibrary Programs Service

Anthony ValentineOperations and Procurement

David WeinProduction Department

James D. YoungDocument Sales Service

3. General Accounting OfficeReviewers/Contributors

Larry HerrmannGeneral Government Division

Stuart KaufmanGeneral Government Division

.—

329

Allen LouderbackGeneral Government Division

Vince DeSantiInformation Management and Technology

Division

Other Office of TechnologyReviewers/Contributors

Susan Koch

Mark Nadel

Joan Winston

Assessment4.

Appendix B

Contributing Authors

This report is the product of several contributing authors. Fred B. Wood, OTA,wrote chapters 1-5, 11, and 12. Prudence S. Adler, OTA, wrote chapters 6, 7, and8. And Jamie A. Grodsky, OTA, wrote chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 3 incorporatedthe results of an OTA staff paper on information formats prepared by Darlene Wong.Chapter 4 incorporated results of an OTA staff paper on GPO operations and serv-ices prepared by Carol Nezzo. And chapter 8 drew on OTA contractor papers oncongressional information prepared by Stephen Frantzich. The results of the GAOsurveys of Federal agencies and Federal information users, OTA contractor papers(including those listed in Appendix C), and information provided to OTA directlyby GPO and NTIS, and others listed in Appendix A, were incorporated to the extentappropriate in drafting the various chapters.

330

Appendix C

List of Contractor Reports

Copies of the following contractor reports completed in support of this assess-ment will be available in late 1988 from the National Technical Information Service,5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650. The views expressedin these reports are those of the contractors and not necessarily those of the OTA,Technology Assessment Board, or U.S. Congress.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Gregory Giebel, University of the District of Columbia, “Technological Changesat the Government Printing Office and Their Impacts Upon Workers, contrac-tor report prepared for OTA, January 1988.Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congres-sional Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, ” contractor report pre-pared for OTA, September 1987.Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congres-sional Information: The Potential and Pitfalls of Technology Enhanced Access,contractor report prepared for OTA, January 1987.Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congres-sional Support Agency Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, con-tractor report prepared for OTA, November 1987.Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, and Barbara Lewton, University of Wash-ington, “Perspectives of State and Local Governments on Federal InformationDissemination, contractor report prepared for OTA, October 1987.Thomas B. Riley, Riley Information Services, “A Survey of International Trendsin Government Information Dissemination, ” contractor report prepared for OTA,November 1987.Frank J. Romano, “Decision Analysis Framework for GPO Strategic Alternatives, ”contractor report prepared for OTA, January 1988.Jacob Ulvila, Decision Science Consortium, Inc. “Decision Analysis of Alterna-tives for Federal Information Dissemination, “ contractor report prepared for OTA,December 1987,

331

Appendix D

Some Key Terms and Definitions

This report uses a number of terms whose defi-nitions are important in order to facilitate under-standing. Some of these key terms are introducedhere. The definitions provided are functional, notlegal.

Federal information–information collectedand/or developed by agencies of the U.S. Govern-ment as part of official agency responsibilities. Fed-eral information includes knowledge or intelligence,such as facts, data, or opinions, in numerical,graphic, or narrative forms, regardless of mode ormedium by which it is maintained or communi-cated. Thus, Federal information can be statisti-cal data on a floppy disk or in a hardback book,or agency regulations on a CD-ROM or in a paperpamphlet. This report focuses primarily on Fed-eral information that is public (e.g., not subject toFOIA exemptions for personal, proprietary, orclassified information).

Printing–Federal information can be printed,published, and disseminated, although the distinc-tions between the latter two terms can be ratherartificial. Printing is the process of stamping, im-pressing, or copying information in the form of let-ters, numbers, graphics, and the like on some kindof surface, such as paper or microform. In tradi-tional ink-on-paper printing, paper is pressedagainst an inked printing surface to make copiesor impressions of the original informational mate-rial. The inked printing surface or plate is typicallymade by creating a picture of the original on a pho-tosensitive surface (the plate). Printing as a termis typically used to include all steps in the print-ing process, from layout and composition to bind-ing. Layout is the planning or designing of the ar-rangement of material to be composed and printed.Composition is the production and arrangementof typographic characters or type for printing,Binding is the tieing together or compiling in abound form of the printed pages of a book, pam-phlet, and the like.

Publishing–is the overall process of creating,reproducing, and releasing or issuing informationalmaterial for sales or distribution. In the FederalGovernment, the publishers are generally consid-ered to be the agencies that originate or create thematerial for sales or distribution. The publishingagencies provide the original material (to be type-set or camera-ready), specify the format and num-ber of copies to be printed (usually by or through

332

GPO for ink-on-paper printing, and occasionallyby agency inhouse print shops), and handle thesales and distribution of copies from the agency.Sales and distribution of some documents are han-dled by the Superintendent of Documents. For sci-entific and technical material, copies may be pro-vided to NTIS for archiving and sales on demand.

Information dissemination–the process bywhich information is actively distributed to thepublic by government agencies or through othermechanisms or channels (including the private andnot-for-profit sectors). Information is disseminatedin a variety of formats and media, and in such away that the interested public can readily becomeaware of the availability of such information. Thus,dissemination focuses on the output part of the in-formational process, while printing focuses on theprocessing or reproduction of the information intoa form suitable for distribution, and publishing in-cludes the creation of the information as well asits reproduction and distribution. Examples ofFederal dissemination mechanisms include theSupDocs and NTIS sales programs, Consumer In-formation Center (for distribution of consumerpamphlets produced by agencies), Depository Li-brary Program (for distribution of agency publica-tions to participating libraries), and the variousagency information centers and informationclearinghouses.

Information access–the process by which indi-viduals can obtain Federal information on theirown initiative. The most frequently cited mecha-nism for such access is the Freedom of Informa-tion Act (FOIA). However, this report uses thebroader concept of information access to includeanything that facilitates the ability or freedom ofthe public to obtain Federal information. In thissense, facilitating public access to Federal infor-mation is accomplished in large measure by Fed-eral printing, publishing, and dissemination activ-ities as well as by access mechanisms such asFOIA.

The major part of this report examines the alter-natives and issues associated with extending theconcepts of printing, publishing, and dissemina-tion from traditional ink-on-paper forms of infor-mational material to electronic forms. In this re-port, electronic printing, electronic publishing, andelectronic dissemination are defined as follows.

333

Electronic printing– the process of electronicallycreating or copying images of information in theform of letters, numbers, graphics, and the like onsome kind of surface. For example, in laser print-ing, the digitized information is fed to a laser thatcreates a dot-matrix image either directly on photo-sensitive paper, or indirectly on a photo-receptordevice in the printer that transfers or “prints”’ theimage onto paper. In impact printing, the digitizedinformation is fed to a microcomputer chip thatdrives a printing head (e.g., a daisy wheel), whichin turn impresses or stamps the information on asurface such as paper.

Since both ink-on-paper printing and electronicprinting typically use electronic photocomposition,the major difference is that electronic printing elim-inates the need for creating photo-negatives andprinting plates and using printing ink and mechan-ical presses to transfer images onto paper. Anothermajor difference is that with electronic printing,the images can be transferred to a variety of othersurfaces besides paper. These include magnetictape, floppy disks, and optical disks, where the digi-tized information is transferred in digital form ontoa surface that is magnetically or optically sensi-tive and then “printed” by electromagnetic or la-ser devices.

Electronic publishing—is the use of electronicforms of information throughout the entire pub-lishing process, from creation, editing, and revi-sion, to printing and distribution. “Electronic pub-lishing" is frequently used synonymously withelectronic printing. Thus, so-called desktop pub-lishing is a version of electronic printing that per-mits iterative electronic composition and page lay-out by the author or originator of the informational

material, its display on a computer screen (i. e., inso-called “soft’ electronic form), its reproductionon paper or in electronic form, and the distribu-tion of the “printed” material electronically ifdesired (e.g., remote locations and/or by printing-on-demand). The term “desktop’ simply meansthat all of this can be done with relatively low-costmicrocomputers, terminals, laser printers, telecom-munication lines (if needed), and the necessary soft-ware. So-called “high-end” electronic publishingsystems perform the same generic functions, butcan handle more complex, higher volume, and/orlonger informational materials. These systems usu-ally can handle considerably more information, andrequire specialized expertise on the part of equip-ment operators. (See ch. 3 for further technical dis-cussion of desktop and high-end electronic publish-ing and related technologies. )

Electronic dissemination—the active distribu-tion of information to the public by governmentagencies or through other mechanisms and chan-nels (including the private and not-for-profit sec-tors) using electronic formats, such as magnetictapes, floppy disks, optical disks, online, and re-mote printing-on-demand. It also includes advis-ing the public of the availability of such informa-tion. Electronic dissemination presumes electronicprinting of the tapes and disks, and the distribu-tion of copies printed remotely. Electronic dissem-ination is compatible with, but does not require,electronic publishing in the sense that the infor-mation does not have to be created in electronicform for it to be converted later into an electronicformat suitable for distribution.

For further discussion of technical terms usedin this report, see chapter 3.