MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FINAL REPORT VOLUME 1 PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE BY BOOZaALLEN & HAMILTON MAY 7, 1996 MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FINAL REPORT VOLUME 1 Executive Summary ES--1 1.0 Background 1-1 2.0 Overarching Issues 2-1 2.1 Mission 2-2 2.2 Assessment of Management Processes 2-29 2.3 Assessment of Operational Processes 2-57 2.4 Organizational Structure 2-76 2.5 Revenue Opportunities 2-91 3.0 Infrastructure 3-1 3.1 Facilities 3-2 3.2 Security 3-21 3.3 Technology Usage 3-36 4.0 Human Resources 4-1 4.1 Labor Relations 4-5 4.2 Competitive Selection Process 4-14 4.3 Personnel Management 4-26 4.4 Human Resources Services Deployment 4-40 4.5 Training 4-47 VOLUME 2 CASE STUDIES Arrearages Reduction Collections Security Competitive Selection Process Fort Meade Storage Facility National Digital Library COMMENTS FROM LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Letter dated April 26, 1996, to the General Accounting Office from the Acting Deputy Librarian of Congress. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A "The Mission and Strategic Priorities of the Library of Congress," Library of Congress, The Gazette, October 27, 1995. Appendix B General Management Focus Groups Notes and Protocol Appendix C Improvement Initiatives Appendix D Organizational Realignments and Personnel Shifts Appendix E Process Profiles Appendix F Collection Control Appendix G Analysis of Inputs and Management of the General Collection of Monographic Books During 1995 Appendix H Analysis of Inputs and Management of Photographs During 1995 Appendix I Collection Policy Statements Appendix J Products, Services and Fees Analysis Appendix K Selected Site Visits Appendix L Selected Bibliography Appendix M List of Acronyms Executive Summary The Library of Congress is the world's largest library, directly serving the Congress, a broad national constituency of the American public and its libraries, and a worldwide research community. Originally established by Thomas Jefferson to support the legislature, the Library of Congress still adheres to the Jeffersonian concept of universality- that there was ". . . no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer." The Library's legislative support role was strengthened in 1914 when the Legislative Reference Service, currently the Congressional Research Service (CRS), was established to provide research and the scientific use of information to solve problems and support policy decisions. Two Library innovations positioned it as a public leader in systematizing intellectual activity and knowledge development. In the early 1900s, the Library's classification and cataloging schemes and its printed catalog cards established bibliographic standards and encouraged cooperation among librarians and scholars nationally and internationally. In the l960s, the Library created its Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) format for converting, maintaining, and distributing bibliographic information that became the national standard in 1971 and the international standard in 1973. The Library maintains its collections of classified books and pamphlets and special format, language, and subject materials in three large, historical facilities on Capitol Hill-the Jefferson, Adams, and Madison buildings-and various annexes in the Washington, D.C. area. With approximately 4,500 employees and an annual appropriation of approximately $350 million, the Library has operations that are currently managed through an Executive Committee, Senior Management Reporting Group, and four major services or operations: Library Services, CRS, Copyright Office, and Law Library. Legislated responsibilities range from collections acquisition, cataloging, preservation, and collections management to delivering products and services to a broad national and international constituency including Congress, libraries, publishers, scholars, the blind and physically handicapped, and a wide cross-section of the American public. Each day, the Library receives more than 10,000 items of which about 7,000 (2.5 million a year) are added to the collections. Currently, the management of these sizable collections is challenging the Library's operational capabilities and resources, and is resulting in identified issues with cataloging arrearages, security, facilities, and Library employees. These issues and approaches to addressing them have focused congressional attention on Library operations. In August 1995, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a letter to the Comptroller General for the General Accounting Office (GAO), requested that the GAO perform a management review and financial audit of the Library of Congress. In December 1995, the GAO contracted with BoozaAllen & Hamilton Inc. to conduct a management review of the Library to support Library FY 1997 congressional hearings. To complement this management review, GAO also contracted with Price Waterhouse to conduct a review of Library financial management. Objectives and Scope BoozaAllen was engaged to examine six major issue areas, principally through analysis of three major services of the Library. Exhibit 1 presents the focus of this management review. EXHIBIT 1 Library of Congress Management Review Focus Issue Areas Services General Management Human Resources Products, Services, and Fees Facilities Security Technology Usage Collections Services Copyright Office Congressional Research Service Overall objectives of this review were to assess current management operations of the Library and develop recommendations for performance improvements in general management, human resources, security, facilities, and technology usage. In the area of products, services and fees, the objective was to assess the revenue potential of charging fees that recover full cost in providing four specific services. Methodology The overall methodology consisted of six primary data collection and analysis approaches supplemented, where appropriate, by techniques specific to each issue area. The general data collection and analytical approaches included the following: Literature search and source reviews of more than 300 Library-related studies and documents including legislation and congressional testimony Interviews with more than 170 individuals Twenty seven focus groups with Library officials, congressional staff, and external groups Process reviews to baseline products and services Benchmarking visits to Federal agencies, university libraries, public libraries, and commercial clearinghouses Case study development to test management procedures in the following areas: - Arrearage Reduction - Competitive Selection Process - Collections Security - Fort Meade Storage Facility - National Digital Library. Additionally, BoozaAllen is conducting a baseline employee survey of Library of Congress staff that will be completed shortly after this report. OVERARCHING ISSUES MISSION The mission of the Library of Congress has been the topic of intermittent debate for nearly 200 years. There is no dispute that the Library was established to store ". . . such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress . . ." that were purchased with a $5,000 appropriation signed into law on April 24, 1800.1 Various further functions have been assigned to the Library across the subsequent decades, some having little direct connection to its role as a congressional library. The Library's activities today encompass an ad hoc role as National Library and an international presence in developing its collections and addressing Library issues worldwide. Findings and Conclusions The Library operates under broad statutory authority. The statutory authority of the Library of Congress provides specific guidance for a number of programs. Throughout its 195-year history, the Library has been given responsibility and funding for a variety of new initiatives with specific authorities. A key contributor to further expansion of the Library's role was the 1897 legislation authorizing the Librarian of Congress to make rules and regulations for the Library. This authorization has provided the Librarian with the capability to initiate projects and programs that become individually funded through congressional appropriation and become permanent components of Library activities. For the last century, the roles and mission of the Library have continued to expand both through Librarian initiatives and congressional legislation. This growth has been accompanied by an increasing range of products and services for its constituencies, the American public, and the international community, and has resulted in an extremely broad and expanding range of Library human, physical, technology, and financial resource requirements. The Library's current mission statement continues to provide a broad framework for guiding the Library. Full text of the mission and strategic priorities statement appears in Appendix A. In October 1995, the Librarian of Congress articulated the Library's mission as follows: The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. The Library has identity and acceptance as America's national library, but may not be effectively fulfilling a national mission. In 1992, the American Library Association (ALA), in testimony concerning Senate bill 2748, the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992, stated, "Although never formally designated as such, the Library of Congress functions as the national library of the United States." The Library's own publications often assert this role. Within the national role, the national library community views the Library of Congress as a leader and focal point in setting some standards in cataloging, classification, and other library issues. However, the national library community representatives in focus groups and interviews said that the Library's historic role of national library leadership has deteriorated. The library community representatives stated that this role is critical in the future to deal with rapidly evolving technology and information issues. No other organization is providing this leadership. A strong perception exists among the U.S. library community that the Library of Congress is not well positioned to address the unique library challenges and opportunities created by dynamic advances in digital information, communication, and storage technologies. The national library community sees future library capabilities, functions, and work processes being transformed by these technologies. They described a much more volatile information and publishing environment already being influenced by online storage, distribution, and access to information. Traditional library functions such as cataloging, storage, and preservation may require radically new approaches to effectively adjust to new information environments. The Library of Congress has an international presence and has selectively engaged in international commitments. Following World War II, the Library established a presence in Europe and elsewhere through expanding acquisition agreements. The foreign language collections expanded to the present day to constitute approximately 50 percent of the Library's book collections and approximately 60 percent of the cataloging workload. The scope and extent of the Library's foreign language collections make the Library of Congress unique among the world's national libraries. Several alternative missions and roles could be considered to shape the future of the Library. Three missions can be used to characterize the potential scope of activities of the Library directly supporting: Congress; the nation; and the world community of libraries, publishers, and scholars. Exhibit 2 presents the three mission alternatives. EXHIBIT 2 Library of Congress - Alternative Missions Mission A: Library of Congress Description Characteristics Focuses the Library's functions toward the original role of serving as the Library of Congress, essentially a collection limited to broadly defined congressional needs and Federal government plus CRS-like research. Other functions go elsewhere or disappear, for example, public outreach. There would be no national library. Leadership of the information/library community would be missing or seized by others. (Some commentators believe that the national library role is more important than the Congressional library role.) Mission B: Library of Congress/Nation Description Characteristics Views the Library's role as a national one with some limits on interpretation and cultural programs which may be placed elsewhere, e.g., exhibits, displays. The national Library role would be formally acknowledged and the Library's leadership/partnering role strengthened. This mission would require increased interaction with national constituencies. A variation of this mission would preserve the Congressional Collection/CRS role as in Mission A, but create another institution to serve as the national library and fulfill the bulk of the present collection and other Library functions. Mission C: Library of Congress/Nation/World Description Characteristics Fulfills the words of the mission statement of October 1995. The terms "make . . . useful" and "universal collection" are particularly powerful in legitimizing the expanded interpretation and collection programs, the latter including materials in many languages and from many countries. With this acknowledged global scope, the size of the collection expands enormously, with accompanying translation and processing consequences. As a basis for assessment and consideration, we have presented as options, two contrasting roles as follows: Independent archive/knowledge developer-focused on independent collection building and constituent support Information/knowledge broker-focused on a cooperative/collaborative focal point role among networks of U.S. and other national libraries and publishers. Exhibit 3 further describes these roles. EXHIBIT 3 Library Of Congress - Alternative Roles Role 1: Independent Archive/Knowledge Developer Description Characteristics The Library continues to develop and manage collections independently in Library and other Federal government facilities. Traditional original cataloging and research or development functions are performed primarily by Library functional components and staff. Library collections and facility requirements continue to expand rapidly based on collection strategy and policies. Traditional areas of Library expertise, acquisitions, cataloging, and preservation continue to grow in importance and are the force behind future staffing requirements. Future technologies are strongly influenced by internal operational needs and are supported by constituent capabilities. Role 2: Collaborative Information/Knowledge Broker Description Characteristics Library's principal role changes from being a custodian of collections with an independent operational role to a comprehensive broker or referral agency. The Library initiates collaborative and cooperative relationships with other libraries, consortia, and the like. It uses computer communications technology to tell an inquirer which library in the nation or world has the specific information. The present Library collection would be dealt with by selective retention and/or transfer to other institutions with arrangements for appropriate preservation. These institutions are likely to be well-established research libraries at universities. Other participating institutions would need to demonstrate their willingness and capability to participate in such a system, especially those responsible for collecting, storing, and providing a specified class of information. The bulk of the documents that are needed by a requester located remotely from the document storage location could be shipped physically by regular or express mail. Even with massive digitization, many books will never be digitized. Alternative missions and roles would have different impacts on the Library's resources, products, and services and on its organization, constituencies, and funding. However, even more fundamental to comparing alternative missions for the Library is the understanding and viewpoint one holds on the role of libraries in society. For those who give to libraries a major role in the preservation, organization, and provision of information in the emerging "information age," Role 1 will likely be unattractive-national leadership is simply imperative. Those principally concerned with serving the Congress are likely to be concerned with the possible distraction from that role that is inherent in Role 2, collaborative information/knowledge broker. In an environment of constrained financial and human resources, streamlining, downsizing, and strategic focus of available resources are essential. Concepts of mission and roles directly impact financial and other resources. Current and Future Mission Recommendation The Library's current mission should be focused and delimited within the Congress/Nation mission, and planning should begin toward a future mission of serving Congress and performing as a national Information/Knowledge Broker. Current Mission As documented in the 1996 testimony of the Librarian of Congress and his principal colleagues before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations, the Library's resources and management infrastructure is sorely stretched to perform the current congressional and national missions. Accordingly, unless more resources can be provided and the infrastructure substantially strengthened, services to Congress should continue as the main priority. To address resource issues, the following candidate areas might be reduced: Acquisition of selected special collections Foreign acquisitions Selected English language acquisitions Original cataloging Cultural affairs activities, exhibits, displays, and performances. Further, the current mission statement might be revised today to read: The Library's mission is to make knowledge available and useful to Congress and available to the American people and to provide leadership in creating networks of institutions that enable the world's knowledge resources to be shared. instead of: The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. Addressing the issues identified throughout this report in national leadership, human resources, facilities, and security, the Library needs to move rapidly to develop collaborative relationships with its primary constituencies and to identify and address major library community issues. This effort requires an increased emphasis on Library initiatives that have been developing in recent years to use the capabilities of the Library's existing workforce most effectively and to reduce the operational activities associated with collection building. Future Mission The future mission of the Library of Congress will derive from three principal developments: Information is increasing in both volume and the role it plays in society Technology for information handling is becoming more powerful and widespread Society will increasingly need and seek institutions to provide better access to, and usability of, information. The Library of Congress, as the recognized "nation's library," is well- positioned to occupy a leadership role in guiding the development and coordinating the functioning of networks of distributed information. The Library would become an electronic broker controlling standards, access protocols, and classification and indexing systems. Collections would be largely decentralized to other institutions, probably by subject matter and/or format. This mission concept would involve a huge undertaking, which would occur over a period of 10 to 20 years. A new and changed mission requires the thoughtful and thorough examination and debate that the Library's heritage deserves. To help accomplish this change, the Librarian needs to take the lead by preparing a detailed plan that outlines the pros and cons of the recommended mission and role as well as other possible alternatives. Then all the affected stakeholders-Congress, government agencies, state and local governments, libraries, publishers, information handling businesses, and others-should be invited to join in examining the options. At the end of this process, the mission of the Library of Congress should be affirmed in law and the level of resources should be provided that will enable the Library's future to be as distinguished as its past. MANAGEMENT PROCESSES The examination of institutional management processes at the Library stems from concerns raised both externally and internally about the direction and management of the institution. Many of these issues had been recurring themes through multiple previous studies and discussions with Congress. Findings and Conclusions Overall, the Library does not have fully integrated systems and processes. At the corporate level, the Library of Congress has in place some key elements of an integrated planning and program execution process, but this process is not comprehensive nor has it been institutionalized. Goals have a tendency to be unit specific rather than Library-wide. Plans in the support services area (human resources, facilities, technology, and security) are incomplete, inactive, or nonexistent. The Library currently does not view, nor leverage, its support functions as systems/tools for improvement or change, resulting in poor delivery of support services. Implementation of functional support occurs at the service unit level causing redundancy, lack of shared resources and improvements, and incomplete execution of Library initiatives. Responsibility for Library-wide priorities and program-specific initiatives rests with service unit management, which fosters proliferated accountability, inadequate tracking or measurement of results, and incomplete or inconsistent execution of initiatives. The Library's approach to measuring performance does not adequately capture organizational-level results or provide systematic feedback on performance. The two areas in which the Library tracks performance are the key indicator project, which currently tracks and counts only transactions, and the individual performance planning and appraisal processes, which measure key executives' contributions toward achieving the Library's strategic goals, but which frequently are not tied to specific goals. The primary institutional mechanism for feedback or evaluation of program efforts is the tracking of the annual budget, which is not an effective mechanism for assessing the achievement of a strategic plan. Furthermore, given that the Library frequently does not track nor have sufficient data about performance outcomes against plans, it is not able to use information for decision making purposes. An exception to this situation is the CRS, where we found an integrated internal planning, program execution, and measurement process, which was introduced in l995. Unclear roles and responsibilities and the lack of accountability for performance negatively affect the Library's implementation of an integrated planning and program execution process. Responsibilities for institutional processes, such as planning, performance measurement, or tracking assignments and action items across service units, are not placed with a specific entity. Examples of the deficiencies noted relevant to accountability and roles and responsibilities include the following: Numerous changes to the Deputy Librarian position and lack of understanding across the institution about the role of that office An 18-month vacancy for the position of Director of Labor Relations Lack of a known point-person responsible for planning and policy analysis The responsibility for technology activities divided between Information Technoogy Services (ITS) and the service units The lack of authority to follow through on Library-wide security issues The lack of an institutional advocate at the Library for long-range facilities planning and an unclear division of responsibility between the Architect of the Capitol and the Library Lack of a training director with a large part of the workforce nearing retirement and no plan to replace critical skills. Recommendations The Library needs to capitalize on its strengths, provide for integration across the institution, and, most importantly, build commitment to ensuring accountability, proactive decision making, and implementation. The Library should: Institute a comprehensive planning and program execution process that builds on components in place and links plans to explicit mission elements and outcome-oriented measures of performance. Improve the delivery of support services-technology, human resources, and facilities-and better integrate these functions into the Library's operations with the Library mission and strategy Institute Library-wide mechanisms to measure performance and monitor results. OPERATIONAL PROCESSES Our study of the Library's processes took two forms: profiling the Library's major processes and detailed examination of the management of two collections-books and photograph. The profiles are made up of flow charts, throughput data, and staffing data for the processes (Appendices E, F, and G). Findings and Conclusions The Library manages its collections on a functional basis. It does not control or measure collection management as a process. A functional management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving functions and resources along and within the organizational structure and components. A process management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving the effectiveness of a business process across an organization to deliver products and services. This difference is shown in Exhibit 4. Typical results from process management practices include reducing backlog problems, eliminating variability in workloads, and increasing the quality and consistency of products and services. EXHIBIT 4 Process Management This concept is based on the realization that producing a product and delivering a service requires activities and internal processes that cut across the organization. This approach has the effect of highlighting the integration of, and communication between, people and functions within the organization and its customers. Furthermore, it facilitates the identification of non-value-added activities and deals with the administrative activities as well as the process activities. One of the main benefits and purposes of using a process management approach is that it provides the understanding of how to control, manage, and constantly improve how the organization delivers its products and services in response to changing customer demands and input variables. Current reporting systems do not provide appropriate visibility of process drivers and controls. These reports are geared mainly to providing information for the Library's annual reports, measuring the levels of arrearages, and producing key indicators. For collections, the existing information systems are not integrated, do not permit tracking of work in process or identify the specific location of an item in circulation, and do not support maintenance of inventory records. We found no controls or procedures for moving work and materials through the collections process. The effects of acquiring large collections are not dealt with in a programmatic or systematic method. We noted that the coordination of and planning for acquisitions of large collections are not based on systematic analysis of the overall effects of the acquisition on the functional areas of the Library. Such factors as the current collection's arrearage status and the requirements for preservation, cataloging, storage, servicing, and budget are not considered in a coherent or consistent manner. Overall, acquisition is not treated programmatically to understand and plan for the workload and resources required to place a collection into service in a timely manner. Operating level improvement initiatives are not integrated along the collections management process. Operating level units in Library Services have initiated a number of projects to improve procedures and services. However, for the initiatives we found, there were no linkages to an integrated effort focusing on improving the collections management process across operating units. It is necessary to make system-wide changes to a process before modernizing the technology that supports it. The cataloging functions in the Copyright Office and the Library are significantly different in both form and purpose. The BoozaAllen effort reviewed the Copyright Office from a process perspective to determine synergism between its processes and those of the Library's collection management. Although the Copyright Office catalogs items, both the purpose and details of the cataloging are substantially different from that performed for either the Library collections or the library industry. To have the Copyright Office catalog in the same manner as the Cataloging Division would require a substantial increase in complexity and workload. Consequently, they offer essentially no cross- organizational processing benefits. Although CRS is markedly different from other parts of the Library, it faces some of the same challenges stemming from infrastructure support. Similar to collections management by the Library, CRS uses a number of information systems for storage, retrieval, and tracking that are not integrated into a broader structure to support the CRS processes. Although CRS tracks significant amounts of data, its focus and use of the information is more transaction reporting than process management. Recommendations In order to streamline its processes and resource utilization and effectively manage its collections, the Library should reengineer its operational processes. Define and manage the Library's operations from a process management perspective Plan and manage special and large acquisitions as projects separate from the normal inflow of material. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The organizational structure of the Library of Congress has evolved over time to focus resources and respond to a series of internal issues and problems. The recent past (from 1988 to 1996) is marked by three major Library reorganizations and numerous shifts in personnel assignments. The present Library organizational structure is based on a reorganization initiated in late 1995 to address repeated concerns about its ability to make decisions and hold people accountable. Findings and Conclusions The Library's functional organizational structure impedes its ability to integrate its operations and improve performance. As described previously, the Library manages its collections on a functional basis (acquisition, preservation, and cataloging) rather than as an end-to-end process. Likewise, support services tend to be managed vertically within the support service rather than horizontally, across the organization being serviced. Despite frequent changes in senior management assignments and organizational structure, the Library has been unable to address its infrastructure and support services problems. Library support services, including Human Resources, Information Technology Systems (ITS), Facilities, and Security, have been frequently identified as not being effectively integrated with Library operations. A consistent finding among the Library support services has been a lack of functional strategic planning and integrated, Library-wide operational planning. These issues are exacerbated by a broad span of control for some senior executives and multiple layers of management, which result in centralization of some operational decisions and lack of adequate guidance or direction in other cases. In analyzing the prospects for moving major Library activities to other agencies, we concluded that, while transfer of the Copyright Office from the Library to another organization may not have negative operational impacts, the benefits of such a move are unknown and may cause significant disruption. There is little operational reason for housing the copyright function at the Library of Congress. But physical relocation of the Copyright Office could incur an annual cost to the recipient of $800,000 for leasing facilities. One of the major benefits of the current arrangement is that copyright deposits are a significant source of material for the Library's collections, conservatively valued at $13 million per year. However, an arrangement could be made in law that the Library would continue to receive these deposits in any case. Similarly, the relationship of the Congressional Research Service to the Library is not dictated by operational process interaction or opportunities for synergy. CRS obtains much of its information from sources other than the Library, and it organizes its operations differently. However, there is no compelling rationale or benefit to decoupling the CRS from the Library. Recommendations We are recommending several adjustments to the Library's organizational structure. However, we strongly recommend that the Library take proactive steps to focus management attention on making the newly established organizational structure work. These steps should include clarifying roles and responsibilities and improving management and operational processes and service delivery across the institution. Our recommended changes are displayed in Exhibit 5. EXHIBIT 5 Recommended Organization Specifically, we recommend a number of changes in roles in the Library which should improve operations of key functions. Establish a permanent Deputy Librarian as the Library's Chief Operating Officer and clarify the role of that position by investing it with Library-wide operational decision-making authority Elevate the Chief Financial Officer position to focus greater attention on improving the Library's financial systems and controls Establish a Chief Information Officer (CIO) position to help implement an effective Information Resource Management (IRM) strategy that integrates the requirements of the Library's broad commitments to internal and external customers and its future mission Assign leadership and responsibility for major processes to individual "process owners" who have authority to provide leadership across organizational lines for security, facilities, and planning and program execution processes. REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES As part of the overall assessment of the Library of Congress, BoozaAllen explored the potential revenue stemming from existing or additional fee- based services: full recovery of copyright registration costs; charging publishers a fee for cataloging; charging commercial researchers a fee for using Library services and facilities; charging fees for interlibrary loans. Expanding fee based options to provide additional revenues would help to offset costs of needed improvements in the Library operations. Findings and Conclusions Opportunities to increase the revenue stream of the Library of Congress do exist and vary significantly in the additional funding they might provide. Exhibit 5 summarizes the overall revenue potential associated with recovering full costs in each of the four areas we analyzed. EXHIBIT 5 Revenue Analyses Offsetting Value of Items Received Fee-Based Service Current Fee Receipts ($000) Potential Revenue From Full-Cost Recovery ($000) Value of Items Received ($000) Potential Net Revenue ($000) Copyright Registration2 12,600 24,000 to 29,400 0 24,000 to 29,400 12,600 24,000 to 29,400 13,296 10,704 to 16,104 Charging Publishers for Cataloging 0 7,500 to 7,600 1,670 5,830 to 5,930 Interlibrary Loans 0 578 to 678 11 567 to 667 Charging Commercial Researchers 0 Cost Data Not Available Cost Data Not Available Cost Data Not Available TOTAL 12,600 32,078 to 37,678 14,977 17,101 to 22,701 Two of the services studied, interlibrary loans and charging commercial researchers, have a low volume, thus limiting their revenue potential. As shown in Exhibit 5, the Library lends relatively few items to other libraries; the potential revenue is under $700,000. Services to commercial researchers are commonly limited to those requests that can be handled in a two-hour time frame. Any additional revenue from those fees would have to be offset by additional costs for performing research that currently is not performed. Significant revenue potential exists for copyright registration and cataloging, but pursuing this revenue potential must be examined in light of precedent and the Library's mission. We believe the revenue potential from recovering full costs for copyright registrations and charging publishers for cataloging should be addressed within the broader context of the Library's mission. Because the copyright registration and Cataloging In Publication (CIP) programs provide considerable contributions to the Library's collection, the effect of increasing or introducing fees for these services may adversely affect that part of the Library's mission. However, assuming a decision to maintain copyright and cataloging in the Library and to charge fees for services, we believe that fully recovering copyright registration costs offers significant opportunities both in terms of additional revenue to be captured and relative ease of implementation. The additional revenue to the Library is substantial- ranging from $11 million to $17 million depending on various assumptions. Of the four services studied, only the Copyright Office currently has the appropriate support structure in place to recover cost. The base fee for copyright registrations can be modified only by law; however, the Copyright Law does provide the authority to adjust base fees at 5-year intervals to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Despite the authority to adjust fees by regulation, the Copyright Office has elected not to do so. As a result, fees have not increased as often as changes in cost would demand or current law would allow. The Copyright Office meets two key criteria for pursuing a fee-based service: significant revenue, which makes putting the necessary structures in place worthwhile, and a strong argument and precedent, which can help diffuse possible negative reactions from the customer and stakeholder base. We have estimated that the potential revenue to the Library from charging publishers a fee for cataloging represents a significant amount of money as well-on the order of $7,500,000 annually. Recovering this potential revenue, however, may be complex. Both Library of Congress management and many of those outside the Library perceive cataloging as a core service of the Library. The Library does not have the financial mechanisms in place to support additional fee-based services. Charging fees for services works best when the appropriate financial structures, such as revolving funds, are in place. The Library does not have the fee collection and reimbursement mechanisms in place for any of the services studied other than for the Copyright Office. As mentioned, only the Copyright Office currently has the appropriate support structure in place to recover cost. The costs of establishing these mechanisms for other services need to be estimated and included in the analysis to assess the real revenue potential from these services. In addition, the Library does not develop detailed cost data for an individual division, nor does it have a framework for determining which possible fee-based services have strong revenue potential. Recommendations The Library should focus efforts on increasing revenue. Specifically, they should: Pursue full recovery of copyright costs Develop a comprehensive plan to explore in detail the potential revenue from charging publishers a fee for cataloging and how to address stakeholder concerns Develop a strategy and approach for qualifying potential fee-based services Develop legislative strategy to provide the Library with the financial mechanisms and authority needed to implement fee-based services. INFRASTRUCTURE There are common infrastructure issues that must be resolved if the Library is to successfully meet the emerging challenges to future mission accomplishment. This infrastructure includes facilities, security, information technology, and human resources. General Findings and Conclusions The lack of strategic-level plans for Library support elements means that significant effort is spent resolving the near-term rather than strategic issues and problems. The support infrastructure operates in a reactive mode. In addition, elements operate in a stovepipe manner, with individual systems for individual functions. Responsibilities for similar functions are often divided among multiple offices without a single process owner for Library-wide matters. The strategic planning shortcoming is most severe in the information technology realm. The Library tends to approach information technology as a support maintenance activity, while technology is revolutionizing the way people work, learn, and live. Although ITS has a Strategic Plan (last revised in September 1995), it does not include a vision for the future that includes IT as an enabler of the Library's mission, an integrated IRM architecture, or performance improvement objectives that are measurable and linked to mission performance. The Library lacks a clear technology vision to support processes within the Library and the creation of networks of institutions that enable the world's knowledge resources to be shared. In facilities, there is no comprehensive plan for the efficient, economic, and secure management of facilities and collections. Facilities planning and management is not treated as an integral part of the Library mission. Although some isolated planning studies and reports define short- and long-term collection storage needs, there is no comprehensive, integrated, Library-wide strategic facilities plan. Without such a plan, there is no formal process in place to: Describe the inter-relationship between the mission of the Library and facilities operations Define Library-wide space management standards Identify facilities options for meeting space requirements and fully develop feasible alternatives. No attempt has been made to determine how technological advances in on- line storage could be leveraged to reduce future physical storage needs. Such an analysis could result in significant long-term cost savings. Similarly, security operates in a reactive mode, responding to issues as they arise. Although the Library has taken steps to improve security of the collections, there continues to be allegations of theft and mutilation. There is no single source of policy or requirements for Library security programs nor a comprehensive assessment of risks. In addition, the Library's allocation of resources for security is not well tracked, making it difficult to assess the Library's total cost or to evaluate outcome against investments. Additionally, the resources and skills of the staff responsible for implementing new technology are, in many instances, rooted in the mainframe computer of prior decades. The Library does not yet have the critical mass of technical talent needed to expand and sustain initiatives such as National Digital Library (NDL). General Recommendations The Library's greatest challenge is to think more strategically about security, facilities, human, and information resources management and their relationship to fulfilling mission objectives. The Library should: Develop Library-wide Strategic Plans for security, facilities, human resources, and information resources Establish integrated, consolidated, and shared data bases for computer- aided facilities management (CAFM), human resources information and tracking, and security related data Plan, design, and manage initiatives in infrastructure improvement as investments with appropriate controls and performance evaluations Define functional personnel skill requirements for the future and develop plans to respond to new technologies, changing missions, and potential staff turnover Update and simplify policies and procedures in infrastructure areas Designate qualified senior professionals, including a Chief Information Officer (CIO), for each infrastructure support area to lead accomplishment of key needed improvements. Specific Findings and Conclusions In addition to the infrastructure overarching issues addressed above, there are a number of findings, conclusions, and recommendations specific to each functional area that need to be addressed. FACILITIES The Library's mission and supporting goals are inherently facility intensive. Available space to store the Library's continuously growing collections has nearly run out. The lack of approved and promulgated corporate space standards inhibits the establishment of a realistic facilities baseline. As a result, the efficiency and equitable distribution of current space use cannot be determined (and therefore controlled), and a supporting, auditable projection of additional space requirements cannot be made. Facilities Recommendations One of the Library's greatest challenges is to treat facilities as an important strategic element for accomplishing the Library's mission. Accordingly, the Library should: Perform a comprehensive, forward looking analysis of space needs against mission priorities Centralize the prioritization and decision-making about space needs Develop comprehensive, uniform, qualitative, and quantitative space standards for all Library facilities and for each type of functional space. SECURITY The Library has a number of security related problems resulting from a fragmented organization, ineffective management procedures, lack of a clear security policy, ill-defined requirements for collections security, an incomplete risk management process, and no comprehensive security plan. The Library does not organize and manage its security functions in an effective manner. There is no single individual responsible and accountable for overall security of the Library. Several divisions have separate and distinct programs with their own policies and guidelines. The management and implementation of electronic security is currently divided between Protective Services and the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). A similar situation exists with respect to computer security. The Library's has not designated responsibility or authority for computer security applications and data. The acting manager of Protective Services Division (PSD) does not have the security background needed to lead the technical and operational implementation of Library computer or physical security programs. The Library's budget structure makes it difficult to determine specifically how much money is spent on security. Thus, it is difficult to accurately assess the Library's total security costs. It is also difficult to determine whether the Library has spent money on the appropriate security initiatives since it has not completed a comprehensive risk assessment that would form the basis for budget decisions. The Library's security program does not conform to generally accepted security practices. There is no single, comprehensive set of security requirements for Library collections programs. Without a requirements baseline, the Library has no comprehensive set of standards, or yardstick, by which to conduct or measure the effectiveness of its security programs. As a result, security is often evaluated only in terms of events, such as the theft or mutilation of books. Also the Library does not have a single, clearly documented security policy. The Library has no method or procedures for systematically evaluating or analyzing risk. The Library does not have a risk management program that includes a comprehensive assessment of the security risks associated with its current operations. Managers from within PSD provide ad hoc risk assessments in concert with managers of the collections. With respect to computer security, the Library has not performed a risk assessment of its information systems. Security Recommendations The Library needs to organize and manage its security functions in a less fragmented manner. The Library should: Identify a single Library Security Officer (LSO) responsible for all security functions Implement a comprehensive risk assessment process Establish a comprehensive and overarching security policy Transition full responsibility for the design, component selection, installation, integration, and operation of all permanent and temporary electronic security components and systems to the AOC Provide management with more detailed information on security program costs and performance. TECHNOLOGY USAGE The Library does not view technology in a strategic context nor has it focused on what information is needed to run the organization. This situation is evidenced by the fact that there is no single system-level architecture (complete with a performance measures management component) in place that can facilitate the organization's decision-making process. A greater strategic focus on Information Resources Management (IRM) would position the Library to make better use of technology. As the Library increases its use of technology, the overall infrastructure becomes an increasingly critical factor affecting the ability of the Library to accomplish its mission. Library systems are not currently integrated at a level appropriate to reduce interfaces between systems, lessen the need for maintenance resources, and minimize redundant data. The Library is in transition regarding the types of mission support systems it is implementing. It is moving from building the internal data repository capabilities, represented by the core legacy system, to systems that are designed more to automate processes. This means that the operations of the Library are increasingly becoming coupled to the systems designed to support them. The Library needs to decide whether to build new systems in-house or to outsource future systems development. The Library has a core dependence on legacy systems that have been in operation for over 20 years. Legacy systems are complex, increasingly difficult to maintain, and cannot evolve in line with future Library requirements. If the Library is asked to assume an information broker role in the future, it must move to new, interactive technologies that facilitate data sharing among geographically dispersed organizations. These legacy systems will not accommodate such changes. Technology Usage Recommendations The Library should: Adopt an IRM approach to information. The Library should begin by changing how it views, collects, and uses information in order to achieve its mission objectives Expand the purview of its ITS organization to promote and sustain the IRM function Develop a target architecture to support long-range goals to include: - A structured configuration audit of all existing systems to establish an accurate configuration baseline; - A plan to transition to the target architecture; and - The mechanisms to control this architecture, and to keep it documented Develop detailed, workable transition plans for Library legacy systems Determine whether to build new systems in-house or to outsource future systems development. HUMAN RESOURCES The Human Resources function cannot meet the challenges of the future. The Human Resources function at the Library has some significant issues, which will impede the Library's ability to support the ongoing and future needs of the services units. Specifically, the Human Resources function at the Library is problematic in the areas of labor relations, recruitment and selection, and training. The Library needs an innovative approach to establishing positive labor- management relations. In order to address the concerns of both labor and management, the Library must adopt new methods for increasing communication between labor and management. Labor-management relations at the Library are largely dependent on the membership of the unions and the personalities involved. Only an innovative approach, which includes an agreement to cooperate by both parties, can change the overall atmosphere of mistrust at the Library. As a means of creating a breakthrough on developing more effective labor management relations, the Library should select a relatively small and severable unit within a larger bargaining unit. The Library and the union could then negotiate a much simplified set of terms with stricter adherence to time frames. These guidelines would be applicable to this group only. The format would emphasize discussions, not paper. The pilot would have a definite duration of less than an entire 3-year contract so that it could be properly reviewed, modified, and extended if successful. Training would be included for all employees, supervisors, and managers covered under the pilot. Specific criteria would be identified to show demonstrable improvement (e.g., fewer grievances). If the pilot succeeds, it would demonstrate to other parts of the Library the benefit of working differently. The Human Resources personnel/processes are not equipped to handle changes to recruitment or selection requirements that may result from innovations in technology, changes to the Library mission, or sizable staff turnover. The service units operate independently in developing recruitment plans with little guidance from Human Resources Support. The Library's core processes require specialized skills provided by a very talented workforce. However, estimates indicate that 50 percent of the workforce will be eligible to retire by 2005, and 70 percent by 2010. The Human Resources Service Unit does not have the skill base to plan for or execute workload and staffing change requirements. Further, it is currently not able to coordinate staffing among the Library service units to effect long-term, strategic needs. The Library has expended significant contract dollars to implement the requirements of the Cook Settlement (Cook v. Billington, August 1994), which adversely impacted and encumbered the hiring process, including training, job analyses, and affirmative action reviews. While the Library is in compliance with the current requirements of the Cook ruling, failure to design and implement a more efficient selection system, coupled with failure to plan for expertise required to manage the system, have caused the Library to expend much effort at the expense of other Human Resources support services. Examples of areas needing improvement include policies/procedures revision and standard application of performance reviews. Training is not viewed as a strategic imperative and not valued or supported by the Library's top management. Training is sporadic and inefficiently provided and does not reflect ongoing assessments of employees' skills requirements, job requirements, and organizational goals. Without ongoing programs to assess employee skills, determine skills gaps, and determine future skills requirements, the Library is unable to plan for and accommodate, through training, changes to the workforce skills base. Human Resources Recommendations The Library needs to make a concerted effort to improve its human resources management function. The Library should: Develop systematic ways to increase communication between labor and management Continue implementing its many competitive selection initiatives and place an employee selection expert in an oversight role Update and simplify all policies and regulations Develop a strategic approach/plan to grow and sustain the expertise and intellectual capital required for the workforce of the future as the Library experiences significant retirements or turnover. Ensure standard application of performance appraisals Ensure that all Human Resources staff members are qualified Investigate alternative methods for providing human resources services Strengthen the position of the Staff Training and Development Office, ensuring that staff development is of strategic importance in achieving the Library's missions and goals. * * * * * * * * The Library of Congress is a valuable and important Federal institution that serves the government as well as other important organizations throughout the nation. But, the well being of the Library is challenged today by a variety of issues ranging from its basic mission and role to the management and operation of its programs and support functions. The Library has had a heralded past, but the key question now is: "What lies ahead?" Making the Library a first class institution for the future will require much work by Library officials. But, that work will only be fruitful in a supportive legislative environment. Therefore, we recommend the Congress commit to a long-term series of oversight hearings on the management and operations of the Library to provide the continuity of interest and support needed to give the Library a future that is both useful to the Congress and to the nation and results in an operationally efficient and effective organization. COMMENTS OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS The General Accounting Office provided copies of the Draft Final Report dated April 19, 1996, to the Library of Congress for their comment. GAO and BoozaAllen staff then met with Library officials on April 24 and 25, 1996, and discussed some of the factual matters in the report. The Library also provided technical corrections that we have made in this report. Further, the Acting Deputy Librarian wrote to GAO on April 26, 1996, providing overall comments on the report's recommendations and overall findings. The Acting Deputy Librarian's letter dated April 26, 1996 is included in Volume 2 of this report. Generally, the Acting Deputy Librarian agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. He indicated that the Library will use the report's data and findings as it updates its strategic plan and implements an updated management improvement plan. He also pointed out that the Library has already begun to address some of the recommendations made in our report. Although the Acting Deputy Librarian said the Library generally agreed with our report, he also said that the Library questions the methodology used in arriving at some of our findings. He said that data gathered from inadequate focus groups were offered as benchmarks for study or emulation by the Library throughout the report, but that there was no indication that these benchmarks were subjected to the same in-depth analysis as the Library's system and processes to which they are compared. As we pointed out in our report, we used several data collection and analysis approaches. We supplemented the data gained in focus groups, for example, with published literature, source documents, interviews, case studies, and process reviews. With respect to the benchmarks we suggested, we based our suggestions on data developed from our site visits to 14 Federal, university, municipal, and private sector organizations. We interviewed over 50 individuals at these organizations. The Acting Deputy Librarian also indicated in his April 26, 1996, letter that the Library disagreed with our assessment of its mission and would provide detailed comments on the Library's mission to the Joint Committee on the Library on May 7, 1996. Finally, the Library disagreed with some of our findings on security. The Acting Deputy Librarian said that the Library maintains a disaster recovery plan for its computer system and has appropriate responsibility in place for its computer security. However, as late as January 1996, in interviews with Library ITS personnel, BoozaAllen received different information. When asked the question about disaster recovery planning for their systems, Library personnel responded that they had material on disaster recovery planning and had discussed it but as yet had not developed a plan which documented their intentions. BoozaAllen also noted that Price Waterhouse, in its financial audit, reported the same finding (see p. 6-34 of the PW report). Further, our recommendation for a responsible official for security relates to overall security, including computer, physical, and personnel security. 1.0 BACKGROUND The Library of Congress is the world's largest library, directly serving the Congress, a broad national constituency of the American public and its libraries, and a worldwide research community. With almost 200 years of growth and development as a legislative library with a broad national role and international presence, the Library must respond to challenges that will test its human and financial resources and that will define its role in the nation and the world for the next century. Originally established by Thomas Jefferson to support the legislature, the Library of Congress still adheres to the Jeffersonian concept of universality-that there was "no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer." The Library's legislative support role was strengthened in 1914 when the Legislative Reference Service, currently the Congressional Research Service (CRS), was established to provide research and the scientific use of information to solve problems and support policy decisions. Other Library services also provide significant congressional support. From the late 1800s, the Library began developing a broad national and public service role that grew into its current role as the de facto national library. In the early 1900s, the Library's classification and cataloging schemes and printed catalog cards established bibliographic standards and encouraged cooperation among librarians and scholars nationally and internationally. In the l960s, the Library created its Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) format for converting, maintaining, and distributing bibliographic information that became the national standard in 1971 and the international standard in 1973. These two Library innovations positioned the Library as a public leader in systematizing intellectual activity and knowledge development. Today, the Library encompasses a broad scope of congressional, national, and international activities while developing and maintaining the world's largest general and special collections of knowledge and creativity. The Library maintains its collections of classified books and pamphlets and special format, language, and subject materials in three large, historical facilities on Capitol Hill-the Jefferson, Adams, and Madison Buildings, and in various annexes in the Washington, D.C. area. The Library's collection-building is relentless. Each day the Library receives more than 10,000 items of which about 7,000 a day or 2.5 million a year are added to the collections. The processing and management of these large numbers of unique books and other materials are a formidable effort that consume many of the Library's resources. Throughout its history, the Library's collections have provided the basic institutional resources through which Library capabilities and its leadership have developed. Currently, managing these sizable collections challenges the Library's operational capabilities and resources, and has resulted in identified issues with cataloging arrearages, security, overburdened facilities and human resources. Over the past several years, these issues and Library approaches to addressing them have focused congressional interest on Library operations. The scope of the Library of Congress constituencies and operations is broad. With approximately 4,500 employees and an annual budget of approximately $370 million, Library operations are currently managed through an Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group and four major services operations: Library Services, the CRS, the Register of Copyright (Copyright Office), and Law Library. Legislated responsibilities range from collections acquisition, cataloging, preservation, and collection management to delivering products and services to a broad national and international constituency including Congress, libraries, publishers, scholars, the blind and physically handicapped, and a wide cross-section of the American public. At the end of the 20th century, the future roles and capabilities of the Library will be influenced by significant external trends and forces. These include the following: Redefinition and downsizing of government roles and scope Revolution in digital information technologies Explosion of information and publications worldwide Redefinition of the role of libraries in the digital age Knowledge as a basis of economic value Globalism and international economic competitiveness. Within the context of these external influences, the Library of Congress will need to clarify its role and direction as a Federal institution. It will need to develop the capabilities, processes, and organization to address its existing issues and to position the institution to effectively perform its future roles. In August 1995, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a letter to the Comptroller General for the General Accounting Office (GAO), requested that the GAO perform a management review and financial audit of the Library of Congress in response to specific issues. In December 1995, the GAO contracted with BoozaAllen & Hamilton Inc. to conduct a management review of the Library to support Library FY 1997 congressional hearings. To complement this management review, GAO also contracted with Price Waterhouse to conduct a review of the Library's financial management. 1.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE BoozaAllen was engaged by GAO to conduct the management review of the Library of Congress by examining four major issue areas, principally through analysis of three major services of the Library. Exhibit 1-1 lists the focus of this management review. EXHIBIT 1-1 Management Review Focus Issue Areas Services General Management Human Resources Products, Services, and Fees Facilities Security Technology Usage Collections Services Copyright Office Congressional Research Service The overall objectives of this review were to assess current operations and to develop recommendations for performance improvements in general management, human resources, security, facilities, and technology usage. In the area of products, services, and fees, the objective was to assess the revenue potential of charging fees that recover full cost in providing four specific services. The four issue areas provided the framework for focusing data collection, analysis, and the development of overall recommendations. Exhibit 1-2 presents the specific topics addressed within each issue area. EXHIBIT 1-2 LC Management Review Topics Issue Areas Topic Areas General Management Mission Management Processes Operational Processes Organizational Structure Human Resources Impact of the Cook Case Training Labor Management Relations EEOC Guideline Compliance Products, Services, and Fees Revenue Opportunity Assessments Cataloging Copyrights Commercial Research Interlibrary Loan Facilities Infrastructure Capabilities Security Policy, Processes, Technology Technology Usage Areas Information Technology Needs to Support Operational Processes Emerging Technologies 1.2 Methodology The overall methodology consisted of six primary data collection and analysis approaches supplemented, where appropriate, by issue area specific techniques. The general data collection and analytical approaches included: Literature search and source document reviews Interviews Focus groups Process reviews Institutional visits Case study development In addition, BoozaAllen is conducting a baseline employee survey of the Library of Congress staff, which will be completed about four weeks following this report. A brief general description of each of the six general activities is presented below. The Appendices contain supporting data. Literature Search and Source Document Reviews BoozaAllen staff reviewed some 300 library-related documents and information. See Selected Bibliography, Appendix L. INTERVIEWS BoozaAllen staff interviewed more than 150 Library staff members, outside persons knowledgeable about the Library, independent or outside experts, and former Library staff members. The groups represented are shown in Exhibit 1-3 below. Both individual and group interviews were conducted using structured interview protocols and general discussions of issues and Library processes and activities. EXHIBIT 1-3 Individuals Represented in Interviews Exhibit 1-4 shows the relative numbers of Library and non-Library participants in the interviews. EXHIBIT 1-4 Library and Non-Library Participants Focus Groups BoozaAllen staff conducted 27 focus groups with 224 participants. These were held to identify perspectives and issues on the Library's mission and services and on human resources issues related to morale, labor relations, training, and staffing. The focus for these groups is represented in Exhibit 1-5. EXHIBIT 1-5 Subjects of Focus Groups Focus groups were conducted in Library facilities in the Madison Building. Results of these focus groups are presented in the Mission and Human Resources sections of this report. Mission focus group protocols are included as Appendix B. Process Reviews BoozaAllen staff used a process management perspective to assess Library performance. In general management issue areas, process profiles were developed to assess resources and workload across the Library in delivering products and services. Management and operational processes were profiled as baseline information for analysis and development of recommendations. Process analyses are presented, where relevant, for the general management and other issue areas. Specific operational process profiles are included as Appendix E. 1.3 SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VISITS To provide benchmarks for comparative analysis and to identify current issues, perspectives, and opportunities for Library management and operations, BoozaAllen staff conducted visits to selected institutions. A total of 14 sites was visited, involving over 55 participants. Sites included the following: Federal government - National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) - Smithsonian Institution - Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) University Libraries - Carnegie Mellon University - Harvard University - Indiana University - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Purdue University - University of California at Berkeley - University of California at Los Angeles Public Libraries - Chicago - New York City Commercial - Corporate/National Research Initiative - On-line Computer Library Center (OCLC) See further details in Section 3.3 and Appendix K. CASE STUDY DEVELOPMENT To provide specific background on Library institutional planning, problem solving, and decision making processes, case studies were developed that provided documentation and analysis of five significant Library issues. The documented case studies are the following: Arrearage Reduction Collections Security Competitive Selection Process Fort Meade Storage Facility National Digital Library. Findings documented in the case studies are incorporated in the relevant sections of this report and served in part as a basis for our analysis of management processes. Case studies are included in Volume 2. Methodologies and approaches specific to each issue-area are described in each issue section. This project was initiated on January 2, 1996 and included the following deliverables: an Interim Briefing, dated February 21, 1996, delivered to the General Accounting Office, the congressional staff, and Library of Congress executives, a Draft Final Report submitted to GAO on April 19, 1996, and this Final Report submitted to GAO on May 7, 1996. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT The report is contained in two volumes: VOLUME 1 Executive Summary summarizes highlights of the report. Sections of the review include: - Background-Describes the background of the project and the scope of our effort. - Overarching Issues-Addresses issues of mission, management, workforce, and revenue opportunities that affect all areas being reviewed. - Infrastructure-Focuses on the areas of facilities, security, and technology usage. - Human Resources-Presents evaluation of the Library's human resources management. VOLUME 2 Case Studies-Presents examples of various decision-making processes within the Library. Comments from Library of Congress-Letter dated April 26, 1996, to the General Accounting Office from the Acting Deputy Librarian of Congress. Appendices-Presents supporting documentation and analysis referenced in the body of the report. 1 John Y. Cole, Jefferson's Legacy, A Brief History of the Library of Congress, 1993. 2 The first row assumes the Copyright Office would continue to receive copies of registration material at no cost as currently legislated. The second row assumes the Library would purchase $13,296,000 of materials for the collections which it receives today at no cost. We predicate the latter assumption on the fact that Copyright Law, as currently written, provides copyright protection regardless of whether or not the creator submits a registration. BoozaAllen & Hamilton BoozaAllen & Hamilton Executive Summary - 14 5/6/96 iii Executive Summary-16 1-8