2.0 OVERARCHING ISSUES This section addresses the overarching and Library-wide issues related to management functions. We examined general management processes in five key subsections: Library mission, management process, operational process, organization structure, and revenue opportunities. These assessments and recommendations incorporate the analyses from the case studies and the other sections of our report. 2.1 MISSION 2.1.1 Background 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 The breadth of the Library's collections and, indeed, many of its aspirations derive considerably from Thomas Jefferson's observation that "there was no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer."2 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 a significant international role in developing its collections and addressing Library issues world-wide. The principle is widely accepted that a clearly articulated mission or purpose is central to an organization's success. In public organizations, mission or purpose is commonly stated in the legislation creating the agency or authorizing its funding. Such statements provide guidance for the agency's programs and priorities and for evaluating performance compared to purpose. 2.1.2 Methodology This study has addressed the subject of the Library's mission by doing the following: Reviewing congressional and Library documentation: statutes, reports, and publications Interviewing 10 selected senior public/research library professionals Holding mission/general management focus groups. Participation and schedules for the four focus groups are shown below: Group Participants Date Congressional Staff Members 6 February 16 Senior Library Executives 7 February 17 External Customers 10 March 13 Federal Libraries 8 March 18 BoozaAllen prepared and used a standard protocol for the mission/general management focus groups that addressed four major topics with each group. Each focus group addressed the following: 7 Current mission statement 7 Customers, products, and services 7 Fees for products and services 7 Mission alternatives. The focus groups with congressional staff members and Library executives also explored a fifth topic, the Library reporting or oversight structure. Appendix B presents the focus group protocols and summaries of the session results. This section presents the overall results of this mission review. We also define, on the basis of the interviews and focus groups, alternative Library missions and roles and assess their implications. 2.1.3 Findings The objective of this section is to identify critical mission-related issues and to develop a framework for making decisions regarding the Library's future mission and roles. 1. 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 tasked with and funded for new initiatives with specific authorities. Recent programs legislatively assigned to the Library include the following: 7 American Television and Radio Archives-1976 7 American Folklife Center-1976 7 Center for the Book-1977 7 Mass Book Deacidification Facility-1984 7 National Film Registry/National Film Preservation Board-1988/92. The Library has broad authority for the acquisition of materials for the Library of Congress and collections using a variety of acquisition methods. This authority and the expanding volumes of materials cause an almost continuous expansion of workload as greater numbers of materials are acquired for the broad range of the Library collections. The enabling legislation that contributed to further expansion of the Library's role was the 1897 legislation authorizing the Librarian of Congress to make rules and regulations for the governing of 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 a permanent component of Library activities. 2. The mission and activities of the Library have continued to expand throughout its history. The Library's activities have almost consistently continued to expand based on both congressional and Librarian actions. With the appointment in 1865 of Ainsworth Spofford as Librarian, the Library of Congress began its expansion from a focus on the legislature to an institution of national and international significance. In 1870, the Copyright Amendment Act brought all copyright registration and deposit activities to the Library and a large collection began to build through copyright deposit. By 1897, the Library had moved into the Jefferson Building and, in the reorganization of the Library, the Librarian was assigned responsibility for making the "rules and regulations for the government" of the Library. For the last century, the roles and mission of the Library have continued to expand both through Librarian initiatives and congressional legislation. Significant events in this mission expansion include the following: 7 Interlibrary loan system established (1901) 7 Sale and distribution of Library of Congress printed catalog cards (1902) 7 Legislative Reference Service (LRS) established (1914) 7 Library of Congress Trust Fund/Board established (1925), creating new cultural role in accepting gifts and bequests 7 Library of Congress Mission in Europe and Mission to Japan, established in 1945-47, initiated automatic book purchase and agreements with foreign dealers 7 LRS renamed Congressional Research Service (CRS) (1970) 7 Acquisition centers established in New Delhi and Cairo (1961) (currently six overseas acquisition offices) 7 Library of Congress Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) format becomes official national standard (1971) and international standard (1973)3 7 Madison Council (1990) established to raise funds from private sources for priority initiatives of the Library 7 National Digital Library (1994) effort to digitize 5 million items of American historical interest by 2000 and make them broadly accessible. In the past 20 years, the expansion of the Library's activities has resulted from rapid growth of the overall collections, specific legislated programs, and Library-sponsored initiatives. The collections have grown at a rapid rate (approximately 2.5 million items annually) as a result of the Library's global reach and through specific initiatives, such as the James Madison Council, in nurturing special collections. Specifically legislated programs in the past two decades include those identified above. Recent initiatives include those associated with a new educational role for the Library, including a Development Office, the James Madison Council, and the "American Memory Project," which has evolved into the National Digital Library (NDL). This breadth of scope has tripled the size of the Library's collections and staff since 1950, with annual appropriations increasing from approximately $9 million in 1950 to more than $350 million in 1996.4 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.5 Although the statement is open to interpretation, it is comprehensive and provides a foundation for the Library's programs. It is supported by four defined priorities: provides service to Congress; preserve, secure and sustain universal collections; make collections maximally accessible; and add interpretive and educational value. We discussed this mission statement in the mission focus groups. Focus group participant comments concerning this mission statement included the following: 7 Deliberately written in the broadest possible terms 7 Generic except for the term "universal" 7 Missing mention of the following: - Leadership role - Role in network of libraries and publishers - Dealing with new forms of knowledge, information, and services - Collaborative role with Federal government/libraries. The definition of universal collection was unclear, and universal collection is considered an impossible goal. "Universal" scope was contrasted with and considered to be different from "comprehensive" collections by senior Library executives. Also the definition of the term "universal" continually expands as knowledge and technology expand. Commitment to future generations was considered a unique Library role that results in a perceived decision making risk in the collections policy in that virtually everything must be acquired as an item of intellectual value. In practice, the Library has distinct exceptions to the stated universal collections policy. First, agriculture and medicine are two disciplines that are excluded from the Library's acquisition processes because other U.S. national libraries acquire and sustain those collections. Second, U.S. Government publications and records, important sources of knowledge and history, are maintained under the purview of the National Archives. Third, some forms of American cultural and intellectual productivity are registered, collected, or archived by the Smithsonian Institution or Patent and Trademark Office. These are all reasonable and distinct exceptions. They show that the Library's collection need not be the truly universal collection of human knowledge or the sole comprehensive record of American history and creativity because distinct forms of knowledge are made available by other national institutions. This mission statement coupled with the range of legislated Library activities continues to provide an extremely broad scope and framework for the Library mission. 3. Current Library activities/programs are numerous and varied. To support the Library's legislated mandates and to support its congressional and public constituencies, the Library provides a broad range of products and services to a wide group of constituencies. Exhibit 2-1 shows the Library's constituencies and principal products and services. EXHIBIT 2-1 Library of Congress Customers, Products, and Services Customer Groups Products/Services Congress: Congressional Members and Staff Congressional Research Service (CRS), Reference, Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Translation Services, Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), Document Delivery Library Internal Staff Document Delivery Other Government: Federal Government Agencies Law Library, Research, Reference Federal Libraries Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK), Federal Library and Information Center (FLICC), Translation Services, Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Cataloging, Interlibrary Loan, Catalog Distribution Service, Federal Research Division (FRD) State and Local Governments Reference, Research Nation/World: Libraries (public, academic, research, special) Interlibrary Loan, Dewey and Library of Congress Classification, Catalog Distribution Service Educators National Digital Library (NDL), Center for the Book Publishers, Scholars, Writers, and Filmmakers Domestic Copyright, International Copyright, Cataloging, Research, Reference, Scholarly Programs, Film Preservation, National Film Preservation Board, National Film Registry General Public Research, Reference, Cultural Performances, Exhibits and Displays, Visitor Services, Retail Marketing, American Folklife Center, Publishing, Publications, Center for the Book, Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Access to World Wide Web site, Special Projects Legal Community Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN) Blind & Physically Handicapped National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (national leadership of a network providing access to machines, audiotapes, and Braille publications) General Library Services: Public and Private Libraries and Archives Preservation, Collection Department, Collection Security, Leadership/Coordination, Photoduplication Although this list is not comprehensive, it is indicative of the breadth of activities and range of constituencies to which the Library must respond. The Library delivers these products and services through its four major "services"-Library Services, CRS, Copyright Office, and the Law Library. The majority of Library staff, approximately 45 percent or 2,100 employees, provides constituent services and collections management activities within the Library Services organization. The CRS, the Law Library, and the Library's Congressional Relations Office, supported by some collections management activities, provide the primary congressional support. The Copyright Office supports the collections through copyright registration and deposit of materials submitted for copyright within the United States. 4. Views on the appropriate scope, focus, and role of the Library of Congress differ significantly among its constituencies. This section presents findings and conclusions associated with the Library's missions and roles: 7 National role 7 International role 7 Priority products and services 7 National leadership role 7 Library capabilities. These findings were developed from participant interviews, focus groups, site visits, and Library data. a. The Library has identity and acceptance as America's national library but may not be effectively fulfilling a national mission. John Cole's history of the Library attributes to a former Librarian, Ainsworth Spofford, the conception of the Library, held more than 100 years ago, as an "American" national library.6 In 1992, the American Library Association (ALA), in testimony concerning S. 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."7 The Library's own publications often assert this role. As a basis of comparison for the Library's national role, national library missions for five foreign national libraries are shown in Exhibit 2-2. EXHIBIT 2-2 National Library Mission Statements Country/Library Mission-Stated or Implied U.S.-Library of Congress "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." Canada-National Library of Canada "The National Library of Canada is a federal institution. . . whose main role is to acquire, preserve, and promote the published heritage of Canada for all Canadians, both now and in the years to come. The Library serves as one of the nation's foremost centers for research in Canadian Studies and as a showcase for Canadian literature and music. The National Library also plays a major role in fostering the development of library resources and services throughout the country and facilitating resource sharing among Canadian libraries." Australia-National Library of Australia "The Mission of the National Library is to be the world's leading documentary resource for learning about and understanding Australia and Australians, linking closely with other sources of information throughout the nation. In partnership with other institutions, the Library aims to lead and facilitate developments to achieve a highly effective national network of libraries." U.K.-The British Library "As the national library of the United Kingdom, the British Library is charged with responsibility for collecting and retaining a copy of everything published in the UK. In addition, the Library purchases its Document Supply Center collection and buys current material from the rest of the world. Through bequest, donation, and sale it also adds to its collection. The British Library offers, worldwide, a variety of reference, information, lending, and cataloging services . . ." France-Bibliotheque Nationale de France "To encompass every field of knowledge, by filling in the gaps and by reinforcing, with its acquisition policy, the areas of excellence of the BNdeF; to utilize the most modern technologies for the transmission of data, by integrating new media, both to preserve original documents and to function as a network; to be at the disposal of everyone by renewing its public service mission and by proposing to a wider public ... a true access to learned reading." Germany-Die Deutsche Bibliothek "According to the law the Library's primary responsibility is the collection, cataloging, and bibliographic indexing of all publications and sound recordings published or produced in Germany since 1913 (in future this will also include video tapes and electronic publications), all publications in the German language published or otherwise produced abroad since 1913, all translations of German language publications published or otherwise produced in other languages since 1913, all foreign-language publications about Germany published or otherwise produced abroad since 1913, and printed works published or authored by German-speaking emigrants from 1933 to 1945." The stated missions of these sample national libraries contrast with the Library of Congress mission statement in several ways: 7 Their focus on national, not international collections 7 Their aim to facilitate resource sharing among the nation's libraries 7 Their focus on published materials 7 Their focus on the use of technology 7 Their relationships with other national libraries. Although none of these representative national libraries encompasses all of the above, the scope of their missions are alternatives to the breadth of the current Library mission. Further, none of these national libraries professes to build a collection of "universal" scope. In this aspect, the Library of Congress is unique among the examined libraries. Results of the focus groups and interviews with senior professionals in the library community clearly acknowledged the current national library role. The national library community, in their focus group as well as in interviews, communicated a consensus that the national role is primary. 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. Focus group participants perceived a deterioration in the Library's national leadership role over the past decade. b. The Library of Congress has a significant international presence and has selectively engaged in international commitments. From the sample national library mission statements and through our interviews, we conclude that the international roles of national libraries have two distinguishing characteristics: 7 The scope of their international collections 7 Their role among other national libraries. Following World War II, the Library established a presence in Europe and elsewhere through acquisition agreements. The foreign language collections expanded to the present day to comprise approximately 50 percent of the Library's book collections and to constitute 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. Over the past several years, the Library has selectively engaged itself internationally. CRS has been funded to support library development for newly emerging democracies. This work has been completed. The Copyright Office has international presence in addressing intellectual property issues. In 1992 several national libraries, through the International Federation of Library Associations, identified focal points for critical library community issues. The Library of Congress chose to focus its preservation efforts in North America with Canada and Mexico, where the Library's leadership judged that it could more effectively implement preservation research and initiatives. The international library role was later assumed by the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. c. Focus group participants expressed diverse perspectives regarding the mission and priority products and services of the Library of Congress. Exhibit 2-3 presents a summary of the focus group members' assessment of critical mission elements and products/services of the Library. These assessments of the future missions are not presented as consensus perspectives. Rather, they include the perspectives of one or more of the focus group participants on mission focus and importance of products and services to the core Library mission. We use these perspectives to assess the implications of mission alternatives in later exhibits in this section. The groups disagreed on the Library's primary mission by constituencies: 7 Congress-Congressional staffers, Library executives 7 Nation-Library customers: Libraries, publishers, scholars, and others. The Federal library representatives identified the Library's role with them as critical and considered that role as separate from that with Congress. Each group identified the importance of both the congressional and national roles in the Library's mission. EXHIBIT 2-3 Mission Assessment Focus Group Mission Focus/Critical Elements Most Critical Products/Services Least Critical Products/Services Congressional Staff 7 Congress primary 7 National role important but secondary 7 Critical mission elements - Universal collection - Archive 7 Congressional research 7 Reference services - Congress - Public 7 Language translation 7 LC classification 7 Collection - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Public research 7 Foreign law research 7 Copyright registration 7 Interlibrary loan 7 Special publications 7 Exhibits, performances 7 National Digital Library Library of Congress Senior Executives 7 Congress primary 7 National and world roles important 7 Critical mission elements - Universal Collections - Knowledge Generation 7 Library leadership, coordination and facilitation roles 7 Congressional research Reference services for Congress 7 Language translation 7 Foreign law research 7 Copyright registration 7 LC classification 7 Cataloging 7 Collection - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 National Digital Library 7 Public reference 7 Special publications 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Photoduplication Libraries, Associations, Publishers, Scholars 7 National role primary 7 Congressional role important 7 World role important 7 Critical mission elements 7 Library/publishing network leadership role 7 Library of last resort 7 Dealing with new forms of knowledge, information, and services 7 Collection building 7 Congressional research 7 Reference 7 Cataloging 7 Interlibrary Loan 7 Classification (LC and Dewey) 7 Catalog Distribution Service 7 Copyright 7 Blind and Physically Handicapped Services 7 Collections - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Translation services 7 Research 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Visitor services 7 Publishing Federal Libraries 7 Federal Government, tied to Congress, primary 7 National role is critical 7 LC centralized coordinating role 7 Critical Mission Elements - Collection building - Leadership - Service to libraries - Accessibility 7 Congressional research 7 FEDLINK 7 Cataloging 7 Interlibrary loan 7 LC classification 7 Technology-based Services 7 Collections - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Center for the Book 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Visitor services 7 Retail marketing 7 American Folklife Center d. Study participants perceived that the Library of Congress' national role should be strengthened. From the interviews, focus groups, and site visits, study participants strongly supported the dual congressional-national mission of the Library. They said that an international role and universal collection should be carefully defined. There was a strong view that the Library is defining its mission role to Congress too narrowly. Several participants felt that by restricting the congressional role to members of Congress and their staffs, the Library is not recognizing that many groups and individuals throughout the United States originate, stimulate, and contribute to defining and developing national policy issues and decisions. Participants stated that the Library needs to recognize that whereas Congress may be its primary constituency, it must also recognize and effectively work with its multiple customers and stakeholders. The national library community identified three specific mission-related issues: 7 The Library's national leadership role in emerging library issues and technologies 7 Library-specific methods versus collaborative ones with other organizations for providing access to information and avoiding redundancy 7 Library of Congress fundraising as competitive with public library funding. The national library community representatives in focus groups and interviews stated 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. Participants stated that the Library of Congress must redefine itself as the major power among many other national and international library networks. By not doing so, participants felt that the Library of Congress was missing major opportunities to make use of its capabilities and expertise. Interviewees and focus group participants identified that using the extensive network of resources available, would strengthen the Library's ability to develop its projects into long-term programs. Some Library initiatives were perceived as being insular and potentially redundant. The participants identified the need for greater collaboration with other library and government organizations to address specific initiatives or issues. An example was public access to legislative information. The Library and the Government Printing Office (GPO) have competing products for distributing congressional information. THOMAS is the Library's on-line public access system for legislative information, and Thorplus is GPO and Purdue University's user-friendly interface for disseminating legislative information through the internet. This suggests that opportunities for efficiencies through collaboration are being lost. The Library has embarked on enthusiastic fundraising efforts for the NDL and other products and services. The national library community views these efforts as competing for the funds it is receiving from local and national sources. Study participants identified a need for the Library of Congress to collaborate in initiatives and questioned the public fundraising role within the Library's mission. e. 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 represented in the focus groups and interviews described a rapidly changing library environment strongly influenced by digital information technologies. Participants saw future library capabilities, functions, and work processes being transformed by digital technologies. Participants described a much more volatile information and publishing environment already being influenced by on- line storage, distribution, and access to information. Traditional library functions such as cataloging, storage, and preservation may require radically new approaches to effectively respond to new information environments. Participants emphasized the need for balance between traditional library methods and pursuing the opportunities presented by the new technologies. Participants generally recognized that no single institution could effectively address the need for new approaches, standards, guidelines, and principles in the new digital environment and that collaboration among all relevant stakeholders was the only appropriate method for defining and addressing these issues. U.S. libraries have already established consortia that are beginning to define and address issues associated with library digitization, as are commercial organizations. The perception among the library community is that the Library of Congress is not inclined to take a leadership role in these types of collaborative efforts in the library community nor, in the participants' view, are the technology capabilities available within the Library of Congress. The large majority of participants perceived that Library of Congress messages regarding NDL have hindered a national dialogue. All participants felt that the Library of Congress should have a leadership role in these efforts, not as a decision maker but as partner and catalyst. 5. Several alternative missions and roles could be considered to shape the future of the Library. Based on our research and focus group results, we have defined alternative missions and roles for the Library. Three missions address the expanding scope of the Library as directly supporting Congress, the nation, and the world community of libraries, publishers, and scholars. Exhibit 2-4 presents the three mission alternatives. EXHIBIT 2-4 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. 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 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. Throughout its history, the Library has also evolved in response to competing visions of its proper role as the Nation's library: 7 A unique, independent institution offering a single comprehensive collection of the Nation's creative works to be used by Congress and the American people 7 The center of a network of American libraries, a focal point for providing other libraries with cataloging and bibliographic services.8 The emphasis of these roles has evolved, dependent on the Library's leadership and funding, to a current expectation that the Library can effectively fulfill both roles. This tension, coupled with expanding national and international scopes and constrained funding, results in a need for the reconsideration of the Library's mission scope and roles. As a basis for assessment and consideration, we have redefined these contrasting roles as follows: 7 Independent archive/knowledge developer-focused on independent collection building and constituent support 7 Information/knowledge broker-focused on a cooperative/collaborative focal point role among networks of U.S. and other national libraries and publishers. Exhibit 2-5 further describes these alternative roles. These two roles and their associated mission dimensions provide the framework for an assessment of the future Library mission and roles. Congressional and Library of Congress participants in this study assessed the current and projected Library role as that of an independent archive/knowledge developer providing a useful resource for the congressional, national, and, to some extent, international audiences. Within the broader national and international communities, participants identified a critical need for the Library of Congress to assume a stronger leadership or catalyst role through collaborative partnering relationships both nationally and internationally. Defining the future missions and roles for the Library requires identification and consideration of the implications among alternatives. The following sections summarize significant implications and impacts among these various alternatives. EXHIBIT 2-5 Library Of Congress Alternative Roles Role 1: Independent Archive/Knowledge Developer Description Characteristics The Library would continue to develop and manage collections independently in Library and other Federal government facilities. Traditional original cataloging and research or development functions would be 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 This would change the Library's principal role from being a custodian of collections with an independent operational role to a comprehensive broker or referral agency. The Library would initiate collaborative and cooperative relationships with other libraries, consortia, and the like. It would use computer communications technology to tell an inquirer which library in the nation or world has the specific information. This mission would be facilitated by index/pointer systems and data transmission techniques to enable timely access to documents and 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 that would be responsible for collecting, storing, and providing a specified class of information. Apart from the system interconnection, the functions of such institutions would be conceptually similar to those performed independently today by the national libraries of agriculture and of medicine. In considering the volume of data to be transmitted under this mission, it should be recognized that 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. 6. Alternative missions and roles would have different impacts on the Library's resources, products, and services and on its organization, constituencies, and funding. From the focus groups, interviews, research, and analysis of current operations, we have identified potential implications and consequences associated with the mission and role alternatives. Assessments of impacts on the following are presented as exhibits: 7 Resources: Collections, Facilities, Human Resources, and Technology (Exhibit 2-6) 7 Products and services (Exhibit 2-7) 7 Relative resource requirements (Exhibit 2-8) 7 Organizational components (Exhibit 2-9) 7 Customers and constituencies (Exhibit 2-10). As the reader examines these exhibits, the complexity of making comparative assessments becomes apparent. The evaluator wants both more detail for each assessment dimension and a way of simplifying the comparison across all dimensions and alternative missions and roles. We have sought a balance that would allow us to reach directional judgments on alternatives: more or less, better or worse, and the like. 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. Exhibit 2-6 illustrates that the implications for current library resources among the missions and roles differ both in kind and degree among the alternatives. The alternatives nearest to current Library functioning are the Congress/Nation scope and the archive/knowledge developer role. Currently, the Library also has a significant international role that is selectively applied. Resource implications range from a focus on and consolidation of the congressional mission to expansion of resources and capabilities into a full international role. Adopting the broker role in a significant way will require new skills and capabilities in staff and technology to utilize existing Library capabilities to create and work in collaborative networks. EXHIBIT 2-6 Implications for Library Resources Mission Collections Facilities Human Resources Technology A. Library of Congress % Focused development strategy-legal, economic, historical; journals/ serials % Evolutionary repositioning of national collections % Facilities reduced as national collections are repositioned % Increase in off-site storage facilities requirement as collections are repositioned % Reduced staff, with increased research emphasis % Lose cataloging/ classification and standards expertise/ leadership 7 Leveraged technology to do work focused on networks and media 7 GLIN providing platform for innovation B. Library of Congress/ Nation % Management capacity-collection development strategy focused through cooperative alliances-U.S. and other national libraries % Focus foreign language and/or English language collections to capacity % Selectively build special collections % Management capacity-stable to growing by collection development strategy % Critical nature of environmentally controlled facilities and preservation technologies % Some shift in staff skills/capabilities from technical to integrated technical/standard setting/ functional library leadership % Critical nature of knowledge/capture and training strategies for current staff 7 Criticality of overall information technology strategy 7 Catalyst/leader within national/ international library communities 7 Research and development (R&D) role in technology use for knowledge development 7 Technology used to create and disseminate information C. Library of Congress/ Nation/World % Expansion of global collections-foreign language % Focus on extended collections through international alliances and catalyst role % LC leadership/ catalyst in global collection development and research % More, smaller international locations % Potentially growing centralized requirements % Criticality of environmentally controlled facilities and preservation technologies % Expansion of foreign language capabilities and staff % Expansion of staff to address global issues 7 Expansion of technology capabilities to include global networking and physical distribution 7 Significant international role in evolving technology and library applications. Multiple-language technologies 7 Enabling innovations in library functions-cataloging and preservation (especially digital formats) EXHIBIT 2-6 (cont.) Implications for Library Resources Role Collections Facilities Human Resources Technology 1. Archive/ Knowledge Developer 7 Current collections expansion rates limited by facilities, staff, and technology capabilities 7 Capacity management-criticality of collection development strategy and policies to balance facilities, staff, and financial resources 7 Expanding facilities requirements 7 Need for innovative facilities solutions to respond to capacity and preservation requirements 7 Focus on traditional library functional expertise-acquisitions, cataloging, preservation, and others. 7 Use of staff to identify/implement work streamlining opportunities 7 Training strategy to develop staff capabilities in operational technologies 7 Focus technology to do operational work 7 Internal requirements for operational performance collection management and public access objectives as causative factors 2. Information/ Knowledge Broker % Focus of collection development strategy on extended, cooperative networks % Stabilizing or contracting of centralized collections would occur over time % Gradually contracting as centralized collections are focused and as cooperative, decentralized collections are established % Increased requirement to manage/support decentralized location of facilities % Increased square footage requirement % Fewer staff as operating functions are decentralized through cooperative agreements % Concentration of staff capabilities on policy, standards, education, leadership, negotiation, as well as technical 7 Becomes key element of broker/leader role in a variety of technologies such as information/ communication, preservation, and facilities The following exhibits, 2-7 through 2-10, present judgmental impact assessments of alternative mission and role decisions for the Library of Congress. These assessments of impact are comparative assessments to 1996 levels of resource commitment (funding and staff) in relative characterizations as more, same, less and/or transfer. These assessments are made for three mission emphases-Congress/Nation/World, and two contrasting roles-Archive/Knowledge Developer, Information/Knowledge Broker. Each mission emphasis implies a refocusing of resources in products/services, organizational components, and specified constituencies. Exclusive focus on service to Congress would represent a contraction in Library mission. The Congress/Nation mission would result in refocusing the Library's product/service emphasis within its current resource base. The Congress/Nation/World mission represents an expansion with additional resource requirements. The two roles, Archive/Knowledge Developer and Information/Knowledge Broker, imply differing levels of resource requirements. The current Archive/Knowledge Developer role will require expanding resources to support collections and service growth constrained by budgets and streamlining. An Information/Knowledge Broker role would require decreased resources over time as current Library activities are performed through collaborative U.S. and international relationships, and technology and innovation provide stronger collections, library, and information infrastructures. These characteristics of each alternative provide the basis for the assessment presented in the following sections. The range of Library products and services is broad as shown in Exhibits 2-3 and 2-7. The effects of the alternative missions and roles include the following: 7 Congress - Increased focus and support to Congress and the Federal government - Reduction or elimination and transfer of national constituency products or services from the Library of Congress 7 Congress/Nation - Reduction of low-priority products or services identified through focus groups or interviews 7 Congress/Nation/World - Reduction of low-priority products or services - Expansion of collections, cataloging, classification, and critical library capabilities as the Library's global role expands 7 Archive/Knowledge Developer - Reduction of low-priority products or services - Increased preservation needs or capabilities. 7 Information/Knowledge Broker - Reduction and/or transfer of traditional library functional capabilities - Increased skill and technology capabilities to build human, physical, and technology networks. EXHIBIT 2-7 Impact on Products and Services Product/Service Mission Role A-Congress B-Nation C-World 1-Archive 2-Broker Congressional Research Reference Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS, LC MARVEL) Translation Services Law Library GLIN FEDLINK Federal Library & Information Center Committee (FLICC) Federal Research Interlibrary Loan Copyright Cataloging Catalog Distribution Service Collections Acquisition Collections Management Dewey Classification LC Classification Preservation NDL Center for the Book Cultural Performances Exhibits and Displays Visitor Services Retail Marketing American Folklife Center Publishing Special Projects Books/Machines for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Photoduplication Legend More Same Less Transfer None Exhibit 2-8 illustrates that the resource requirements reflect an assessment of the relative scope of each of the alternatives. The Congress/Nation and Archive/Knowledge Developer alternatives are a close representation of the Library's operations and role. Library funding in constant dollars since 1980, although somewhat cyclical, has declined about 3 to 4 percent. Funded full-time equivalent (FTE) positions have decreased by approximately 12 percent, from 4,818 in 1980 to 4,214 in 1996.9 EXHIBIT 2-8 Relative Resource Requirements Mission Relative Resource Requirements Compared to Today's Annual Appropriation of $350 Million A. Library of Congress Much less B. Library of Congress/Nation Same C. Library of Congress/ Nation/World More Role 1. Archive/Knowledge Developer Same 2. Information/Knowledge Broker Less10 In an environment of contracting financial and human resources, streamlining, and downsizing, strategically focusing available resources is essential. The financial resource effects of the alternative missions and roles directly relate to the conceptions of missions and roles. The Congress/Nation mission and Archive/Knowledge Developer roles are approximately similar to current requirements with some reduction in low- priority products and services to accommodate resource and staffing reductions. Focusing resources on the Library's role to Congress could reduce funding requirements substantially by consolidating and focusing resources and moving national collections to alternative libraries. An expansion of the scope to a more formal global role could require significant additional resources for collections and for developing international capabilities. The Information/Knowledge Broker role would result in decreased funding requirements in the intermediate term (5 to 10 years) as the Library develops its technology and leadership capabilities to create opportunities for new ways of working and for using the capabilities and expertise of networks of libraries and publishers. Exhibit 2-9 shows the assessment of the impact of mission and role alternatives on the major library organizational components. EXHIBIT 2-9 Impact of Alternatives on the Funding of Library's Organizational Components The Congress/Nation mission and Archive/Knowledge Developer role are the closest to current operations with some downsizing of lower-priority cultural affairs activities identified by review participants. The first row of the exhibit shows approximate FY 1995 funding for each major organizational component using appropriated funding. As the reader can deduct from the exhibit, approximately 50 percent of the funding of the Library goes to collections management processes and functional support services, including technology. Streamlining and/or making the most of the processes and capabilities can provide opportunities for funding further development. Intermediate-term opportunities for streamlining collection management processes may be realized by focusing on the congressional mission and by focusing collections appropriately and by using outside resources through the Information/Knowledge Broker role. A broker/facilitator role as well as national and world roles would require the capabilities of technology and support services (contracting, logistics, audit, and the like). The impact of the mission and role alternatives requires consideration of four major groups of constituents-Congress; Federal libraries and government agencies; the library, publishing, and scholarly communities; and other major constituencies, including the general public. Refocusing resources through the selection or definition of the scope (Congress, Nation, or the World) will provide additional resources or services to the appropriate congressional, national, or international constituencies as shown in Exhibit 2-10. The Information/Knowledge Broker role could provide additional capabilities or services to the national and international networks and make use of the resources of other institutions. Specific public constituencies may receive reduced direct services from the Library; however, overall support and service should be expanded through the network of libraries, publishers, and other institutions. Exhibit 2-10 Impact of Mission or Role Alternatives on Customers and Constituents 2.1.4 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. The Library's dual mission to serve the Congress and the nation is broadly recognized and has evolved to constitute the legitimate mission of the Library of Congress as identified in each focus group and interview. Within the national mission context, participants in this assessment consistently identified a rapidly changing technology environment, advances in digitization, and the need for the Library's leadership and collaboration in addressing critical research, standards, and classification issues that are not being addressed. Additionally, participants clearly recognized the need to systematically limit and consolidate the Library's global role. The majority of study participants identified opportunities for Library partnering and collaborative relationships and the use of new technology capabilities to make the most of existing Library capabilities and develop needed ones. Current Mission As documented elsewhere in this report and 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 are 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, as identified through interviews and focus groups, might be reduced: 7 Acquisition of selected special collections 7 Foreign acquisitions 7 Selected English language acquisitions 7 Original cataloging 7 Cultural affairs activities, exhibits, displays, and performances. The criteria for identifying reductions in each of these areas must be developed based on risk and the availability of alternatives; however, our review identified these as offering real opportunities for reductions. Further, the current mission statement might be revised 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-public and research libraries, publishers, national libraries, and film producers-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 (cooperative and copy cataloging, collections and resource sharing, and others) to most effectively utilize its existing workforce capabilities and also to reduce its operational activities associated with collection building. These collaborative efforts should be accompanied by a clear strategy for collection development that builds upon them. It appears that this collaborative broker strategy could result in freeing significant resources in traditional library operations over the next few years. Future Mission The future mission of the Library of Congress will derive from three principal developments: 7 Information is increasing in both volume and the role it plays in society 7 Technology for information handling-recording, storing, transmitting, and presenting-is becoming more powerful and widespread 7 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 networks would connect users with the facility that is custodian of the desired information. The Library would be a kind of electronic broker, controlling standards, access protocols, and classification and indexing systems. It would not be the custodian of the information, that is, it would not have a comprehensive collections role. Collections would be largely decentralized to other institutions, probably by subject matter and/or format. This mission concept would involve a huge undertaking, the implementation of which would occur over a period of 10 to 20 years. It would require both institutional and technological coordination of massive proportions. It could be undertaken incrementally as participating institutions were brought on-line. A new and changed mission requires the thoughtful and thorough examination and debate that the Library's heritage deserves. To help accomplish this, the Librarian needs to take the lead by preparing a detailed plan that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended mission and role, as well as of 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 pros and cons. At the end of this process, the chosen 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. 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT PROCESSES The examination of institutional management processes at the Library stems from concerns raised internally and externally about the direction and management of the institution. External observers of the Library, including Congress, have identified specific issues relating to human resources, facilities planning, and security. In addition, Congress has raised concerns about overall Library management and the ability of the Library to rectify specific issues and, more importantly, to provide the institution with a clear, comprehensive management approach for future operations. 2.2.1 Background In order to explore these concerns more fully, GAO requested BoozaAllen to examine the institution-wide processes for managing the Library of Congress, particularly in the area of institutional integrated planning and program execution. The areas of concern that GAO asked BoozaAllen to address include the following: 7 Planning, including policy and strategy development, and budgeting and resource allocation 7 Execution, including executive decision making and problem solving, accountability, roles and responsibilities and communication 7 Performance tracking, measurement, and evaluation. 2.2.2 Methodology In order to examine the key Library-wide management processes, BoozaAllen developed an approach that combined Library management's description of the processes through interviews with review of available documentation of the management processes and their products. 7 Interviews-We employed structured interviews, informational meetings, and follow-up discussions to collect information from Library personnel. For the assessment of management processes, we conducted more than 50 interviews, including interviews with senior Library managers from across the institution, middle managers in service units, and selected staff members. Meetings included such people as the Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Acting Deputy Librarian, Associate Librarians, Chief of Staff, executive-level managers, service unit heads, division chiefs, committee and working group chairpersons, special assistants, senior professionals from across the Library and congressional staff. Multiple follow-up sessions were conducted in person and by telephone. 7 Document Collection and Analysis-We gathered documents from all parts and levels of the Library, including the Office of the Librarian, from service units, and from the files of the Records Management Section. Documents reviewed included budget guidance, budget justification and plans, Library-wide planning documentation, executive committee minutes and agenda, internal memoranda, and published information. Additional reviews included congressional testimony, formal announcements, budgets, annual reports, published plans, regulations, project files, bulletins, and newsletters. We supplemented documentation regarding Library-wide processes with supporting documentation from Library line and staff organizations. We focused our document review on information particularly covering the 1991 to 1995 time frame. 2.2.3 Findings and Conclusions This section presents findings and conclusions resulting from BoozaAllen's study of management and planning processes at the Library of Congress in 12 parts. 1. At the corporate level, the Library of Congress has in place some of the key elements of an integrated planning and program execution process, but this process is not comprehensive nor has it been institutionalized. In assessing the management processes of the Library, BoozaAllen compared the process descriptions and documentation provided by the Library to a conceptual model of an integrated planning and program execution system. Exhibit 2-11 depicts the conceptual framework BoozaAllen applied to assess the completeness and adequacy of the Library's planning and program execution processes. This process has six key elements: 7 Strategic planning, which includes the articulation of mission and vision and explicit goals and objectives 7 Tactical, operating, or annual program planning, which develops near- term (annual) action plans for implementing strategic plan direction 7 Budget development, which ensures that budget allocation decisions are based on strategic goals and annual operating plans 7 Program execution, which ensures the delivery of services and programs 7 Performance measures, which capture organizational results in terms of both outcome and process, and provide targets of performance against those measures 7 Feedback, monitoring, and evaluation, which ensure that all aspects of the planning and program execution process are integrated and implemented in an efficient and effective manner. In addition to showing the key aspects of the planning and program execution process, Exhibit 2-11 depicts the following enabling processes that support the system: 7 Processes for establishing accountability and determining roles and responsibilities 7 Processes for decision making and communication. The exhibit has been annotated to display major Library efforts since 1988 in each of the key elements. These are discussed in turn below. EXHIBIT 2-11 Key Components of an Integrated Planning and Program Execution Process 2. Although the Library of Congress has initiated several corporate level strategic planning activities since 1988, the process for establishing and revisiting strategic plans is not consistent or formalized. The Library has initiated four institution-wide strategic planning activities over the last several years. These are as follows: 7 The Management and Planning Committee (MAP), its resulting report and transition teams (1988-89) 7 The Library Strategic Plan (1992) 7 The Management Retreat (1994) 7 The Mission and Strategic Priorities statement (1995). Our analysis of the process and associated documentation for these four activities demonstrates that the participation, purpose, and timing for each of these efforts vary significantly, as shown in Exhibit 2-12. EXHIBIT 2-12 Characteristics of Library Strategic Planning Activities Activity Participants Purpose Time Frame MAP Broad-based participation through staff-led team Develop and implement recommendations regarding Library direction and operations Developed over 1 year, 1988-89, followed by an 8-month implementation. Library Strategic Plan Management team Develop strategic plan document Published in December 1992. Developed over several months. Management Retreat Management team Develop action plans and an integrated planning process Held a weekend retreat in November, 1994; follow-up was done over several months. Mission and Strategic Priorities Statement Librarian, Executive Committee Clarify mission and priorities Published in October 1995 after review and comment by the Executive Committee. 7 The MAP process was staff led and broadly inclusive. The MAP Committee included a group of 29 Library personnel who met over the course of 1988. Their November 1988 report began with statements of mission and vision and outlined 108 recommendations for organizational change. Transition teams formed to implement MAP recommendations, which culminated in the October 1, 1989 reorganization of the Library of Congress. 7 The Strategic Plan was developed by the Management Team,11 a group of approximately 20 senior managers, and focused on completion of a strategic plan document. It is divided into two phases: Phase I, 1993 1996, modernizing the Library in Washington, and Phase II, 1997 2000, building the Library of the future. The document articulates a vision for the future for the collections, service to Congress, and service to the public. It also sets priorities and identifies potential efficiencies for collections, human resources, facilities, financial resources, technologies, an electronic library, and public programs. 7 The Management Retreat of November 1994, attended by the Management Team, focused on the development of action plans for specific issue areas. It was the first Library-wide effort to reaffirm and refocus on operational implementation of the 1992 strategic plan. The retreat was intended to build an operational framework for change, continuous improvement, implementation of the Library's strategic plan, budget decisions, and linking service unit plans to the strategic plan. It focused on three infrastructure concerns: human resources, technology, and space, and other problem areas including planning and its implementation. 7 The Librarian developed the Library of Congress Mission and Strategic Priorities, included as Appendix A, in conjunction with the Executive Committee. It was published on October 27, 1995, in The Gazette,12 broadly distributed within the Library, and issued on the Internet. This brief statement includes four sections: mission, strategic priorities, enabling infrastructure, and implications. Its purpose is to disseminate the Library's priorities to a broad audience. Review of Library planning documents and associated memoranda indicate that the four major strategic planning efforts identified recurrent issues such as arrearage reduction, security, and support services, as shown in Exhibit 2-13. Many of the issues treated in MAP recommendations, for example, were also mentioned in the 1992 Strategic Plan and were part of the Management Retreat. In some cases, such as arrearages, this recurrent focus produced results. In other cases, such as human resources, technology, and facilities, repeated issue identification over time has not met with similar resolution and progress. EXHIBIT 2-13 Library-Wide Planning Efforts Identify Recurring Themes Strategic Planning Milestone Themes/Content Results MAP Committee and Transition Team One-hundred eight recommendations in many areas, including management and planning processes, collections security, arrearages, and enabling infrastructure (technology, human resources, facilities, and security). The October 1989 reorganization resulted, creating Constituent and Collections Services and setting arrearage reduction as a primary goal. Progress in infrastructure areas was elusive. Strategic Plan A two-phased vision of the Library's future, description of institutional strengths and opportunities, and some specific objectives. A continued focus on arrearage reduction resulted. The National Digital Library (NDL) effort was created. Infrastructure continues to be an issue. Management Retreat Assessment of progress against and reaffirmation of the strategic plan; focus on human resources, facilities, and technology. Action plans were developed but their implementation was not tracked. Planning guidance was developed, but not adopted. Mission and Strategic Priorities Statement Restatement of Library mission and proposal of four strategic priorities; mention of the criticality of the infrastructure. This document was widely disseminated, but it is too early to assess its impact. The Library does not have a regular time frame or schedule for its strategic planning efforts. From our review, the impetus for most of the strategic planning efforts appears to be external events, rather than a regular examination of strategy and progress against plan. 7 1988 MAP-After Dr. Billington's appointment 7 1992 Strategic Plan-After the congressional request 7 1994 Management Retreat-After the arrival of the new Deputy Librarian 7 1995 Mission and Priorities-After congressional hearings. In our review of the planning documents stemming from each of the four planning events, we did not identify a clear link from one planning event or document to the next, with the exception of the 1994 Management Retreat. Using the 1989 MAP report as the starting point, we assessed each of the planning documents to determine how it related formally to the efforts that had gone before: 7 The 1992 Strategic Plan is a deliberate attempt to start fresh and, as such, did not formally link to the 1989 MAP report 7 The 1994 Management Review does begin with a review of the 1992 Strategic Plan 7 The 1995 Mission and Priorities does not formally refer to the 1992 Strategic Plan or the 1994 Management Review. The lack of clear, identifiable linkage from one strategic planning effort to the next is an impediment to the effectiveness of planning efforts. The strategic planning process does not document the rationale and progress (or changes in direction) made, both of which are key components to the assessment of priorities and allocation of resources. The lack of a systematic process for assessing progress contributes to the confusion regarding future direction and strategy of the Library voiced by many members of Library management in our interviews. 3. The institution-wide strategic planning efforts have provided high- level mission, vision, and priorities, but they are not supported by a formal institution-wide annual operating, tactical, or program planning process. An annual operating or program plan, which provides the tactical basis for the implementation of the strategic plan, forms the second major step in an integrated planning and program execution process. Although the Library has initiated two operating planning efforts, as shown in Exhibit 2-11, it has not developed an institutional process for translating mission, vision and priorities into an annual operating plan for the entire organization. In our interviews and analysis of the planning documents provided to us, we found only two instances of operating planning. The MAP report was followed by transition teams, which developed action plans for the recommendations. Although the transition teams developed action plans for the entire MAP report, not all of these action plans were carried through. For example, of the 108 MAP recommendations, the MAP committee determined 43 to be of high priority. Examination of these recommendations indicates that in some cases, such as establishment of arrearage reduction as a primary goal and other collections-related areas, the Library has made significant progress. In other areas, however, such as basic services, planning, budgeting and cost, and human resources, the MAP recommendations still stand. The reorganization plan developed by the MAP transition team was also implemented. The Management Retreat was followed by development of specific plans for human resources, space, and information technology (IT). The organization responsible for each area developed action plans to address systemic and historical concerns about infrastructure. The action plans for the Management Retreat included the recommended actions, priority, responsible party, and targeted completion date. The subsequent Information Technology Service (ITS) working group responded to the concerns of the Library senior management by stating, "Certainly a number of the issues identified are real while some are issues of perception and/or lack knowledge of operational details. We did not feel our team should be captive to this particular listing of issues." 13 The ITS plan provided target completion dates for 14 of the 48 actions and used terms such as "continuing, underway, ongoing," or blank spaces for the remaining majority of the actions. It routinely uses the terms "exists, underway, or in strategic plan" instead of specifying a responsible officer or subunit for implementing and tracking the initiative. The experience for Human Resources and facilities was similar-significant effort and consensus surrounding issue identification was followed by inattention to follow-up and implementation. The Library has developed operating plans for specific issues of major concern in some cases. Arrearage reduction, described in the case study in Volume 2, is an example of an issue for which, once identified as a priority in the MAP strategic planning process, tactical plans were developed, tracked, revised, and implemented. Plans were also developed for high-priority issues such as security, but not consistently implemented or tracked. Despite recurrent planning activity and implementation of numerous separate initiatives, security continues to be a major source of concern for Library observers. Security plans are explained in the case study in Volume 2. In the case of facilities planning and the Fort Meade project, a lack of strong planning, analysis, and justification of requirements failed to cause action. The case study in Volume 2 examines the Fort Meade project in greater detail. In the human resources area, plans exist for internal operations of the human resources service unit, but do not integrate those services with Library needs. Library management develops plans for priorities arising from the outside. Follow-through occurs on an ad hoc basis. In cases where a strong focal point for coordination has been designated, such as arrearage reduction, follow-through is more deliberate. Overall, the lack of an explicit annual operational or program planning process hinders the Library's ability to ensure, on an institution-wide basis, that it has implemented its strategic plan and priorities and achieved its goals. As a result, several managers interviewed expressed uncertainty regarding how Library strategy applied to them or their organizations. 4. The Library has a complete budget process, but it is not consistently or explicitly linked to the strategic plan. The third piece of the model of an integrated planning and program execution process is the budget and resource allocation process, as shown in Exhibit 2-11. Our analysis of documentation supporting the Library of Congress' annual budget process found that the Library has structured its approach for formulating, justifying, and executing the budget to respond to existing requirements of the Federal budget process. The Library has not yet gone further, however, and directly linked the budget process to the execution of the Library's strategic goals. Detailed examination of financial management processes is the subject of the Price Waterhouse study and is not considered here. The lack of operating detail in the Library's strategic planning efforts, which should come in an annual operating plan, creates the difficulty in using the strategy to guide the Library's budget decisions. Annual program or operating plans should provide a means for connecting strategy with resource allocation and budget decisions by identifying resource implications of various courses of action. The Financial Services Directorate issues its annual budget call to service units in the spring of each year, directing each organization to develop its budget request based on Library priorities. These requests are presented to the Budget Review Committee for assessment and for review of institution-wide budget issues. They are generally based on adjustment of the previous year's budget to account for wage and price increases, rather than on assessment of resources required to meet Library mission and support its priorities. At the staff level, the Library has established the Budget Working Group, which serves as a cross -cutting mechanism for developing proposed budgets, justification, and tracking throughout the year. These two review groups, the Budget Review Committee and the Budget Working Group, are the primary mechanisms currently used for linking actual budget development to the strategic plan on an institution-wide basis. A review of the Library's budget over the past several years shows that the Library has obtained additional funding for high-priority objectives from the strategic plan, such as the reduction in arrearages, the development of the National Digital Library (NDL), and security. While the Library estimated, requested and received 164 additional FTEs to address arrearage reduction, the degree to which those positions have contributed to the resolution of the problem has not been quantitatively assessed. The estimated cost of the NDL pilot program is not part of a rigorous analysis of Library-wide impacts. For security, additional resources are requested for specific items, but not as part of a comprehensive, integrated security plan. Once funds are appropriated, changes to fund allocations are administered through a funds control process managed by service unit managers and compiled by the Financial Services Directorate. The quarterly status of funds review allows Library managers to track expenditures against plan and adjust or seek formal reprogramming authority accordingly. This process takes into account changing priorities or needs. The budget process does not provide detailed policy guidance regarding program direction. The Budget Working Group, which operates at the staff level, works through budget process implementation issues affecting multiple organizational units in the Library, and may eventually serve as a force for integration among service units. The role of the Financial Services Directorate is primarily compilation of budget data, preparation of justification materials, and monitoring of funds status. Their financial management role, supported by a regular planning process for the financial management systems at the Library, has not heretofore had a strong policy component. Service unit internal distribution of resources is the responsibility of line management. In addition, project-based or life-cycle cost estimates, not required by any Library policy or guidance but often part of resource planning efforts, can provide additional insight into the implementation of strategy. Without a process for developing institution-wide estimates for cross-cutting initiatives or for developing understanding of the costs of taking pilot projects to scale, the Library's strategy cannot be translated to budget in a comprehensive manner. The Library's budget is a one-year document based more on prior year expenditures than on resource requirements associated with a detailed program plan. It does not include out-year estimates, or multiyear planning profiles. In addition, because of the lack of a systems view and operational program planning approach to problem solving, identification of funds associated with specific projects or issues is difficult. For example, we could not readily identify resources across the Library system related to security. Many service units replicate aspects of support services, such as human resources and technology. These serve as examples of areas in which a systems-wide strategy for identifying needed resources would be useful. 5. Program execution occurs at the service unit level and is appropriately the responsibility of the service unit management. The fourth component of the integrated planning and program execution process is execution or the actual delivery of services and accomplishment of results. Our examination of program execution processes at the Library found that service units are responsible for and direct program execution and operating decisions with minimal involvement of the Library executive management. There is no widely accepted, established process for ensuring that Library mission and vision is a primary driver of program execution decisions. In cases of external attention or institutional concern, service unit heads are responsible for programmatic decisions in the absence of an effective corporate decision-making body. For security, for example, decisions to allocate budgeted resources to implement recommendations of the Library-wide security committee were at the service unit's discretion. The service units provide the focus for Library activity and are the basis for the implementation of its programs. Responsibility for translating Library-wide priorities and program-specific initiatives rests with service unit management. Service unit heads exercise autonomy in making decisions on the operation of their organizations. These include the responsibility for organizational structure and personnel assignments (subject to labor and human resources regulations and requirements), budget development, funds control, and program execution. In addition, leaders of service units and directorates are responsible for the management processes that guide their organizations. For major institutional issues, the Library frequently establishes committees or task forces drawn from across the Library. These committees and tasks forces are charged with developing recommendations, whereas implementation is the responsibility of service units and directorates, which determine the priorities of these recommendations based on their internal workloads and demands. For administrative matters, Library of Congress Regulations (LCRs) provide a structure for institutionalizing major policies and procedures. Although the Library has not developed a comprehensive process that links program execution to the strategic plan, it has made important strides to execute against several major concerns or priorities identified in its strategic planning efforts. Arrearage reduction, identified as a primary goal in the MAP report, continues as a priority. Activities in the electronic library area, such as the NDL effort, derive from the 1992 strategic plan. In other infrastructure support areas, including human resources, facilities and technology, Library personnel interviewed consistently point to lack of service delivery and reactive operating styles. Efforts to improve delivery of Library services and increase efficiency and effectiveness of program execution are numerous at the service unit and directorate level. The operational processes section of our report identifies process improvements found at the operating levels. Some of these internally generated initiatives are summarized in Appendix C. These performance improvement initiatives include, among others: 7 Efforts to reengineer business processes to improve productivity 7 Team based approaches to acquisition 7 Cooperative cataloging arrangements. While examples of innovation and productivity improvement efforts on the part of Library personnel in different parts of the organization are numerous, the Library lacks a process for systematizing the results of these undertakings or sharing experience across departments and services. 6. The Library approach to measuring performance does not adequately capture organizational results or provide systematic feedback regarding organizational performance. The fifth component of an integrated planning and program execution process, as depicted in Exhibit 2-11, is performance measurement, which provides information on the effectiveness of the operational plans and progress against the achievement of the strategic goals. At the Library, we found institutional attention to performance measurement in two areas: 7 The Key Indicators project, which is intended to build the key operating measures of the Library 7 Individual performance planning and appraisal processes, which measure key executives' contribution toward achieving the Library's strategic plan. According to the Library managers interviewed and documents reviewed, the purpose of the Key Indicators project is to provide the Library with key statistical indicators to monitor the Library's performance and accomplishment of its mission. The Library developed a three-phase approach to the Key Indicators project, depicted in Exhibit 2-14, and has implemented Phase I. EXHIBIT 2-14 Phases of the Key Indicators Project The first phase sought to establish a Library-wide system for the collection, reporting, consolidation, and distribution of statistical measures, and to make it routine. Phase II includes expansion and validation of the list of key indicators, establishment of reporting requirements, and development of publication procedures. Phase III includes development of ways to link key indicators to planning and execution of the Library's budget. Development of different types of measures to inform management decision making, establishing targets of performance against those measures, and comparing planned and actual results was not a primary component of the project. Phase I has been underway since 1991. The Phase I measures and data are summarized in Exhibit 2-15, and provide a good summary of workload statistics for the Library. However, Library's current key indicators do not provide strategic-level measures to guide organizational performance nor do these indicators permit assessment of actual organizational results against the strategic plan and goals. We determined that the Library key indicators are generally measures of workload rather than a means of tracking progress toward strategic goals and objectives. The operational processes section of our report further explains Library reporting systems. The Key Indicators project has not yet developed enough to be a system whereby Library strategic objectives are translated into observable and measurable outcomes or whereby performance is tracked with critical indicators that management uses to benchmark the success of functions and activities. Rather, the key indicators effectively capture transactions and workload information for inclusion in the Library's Annual Report and provision to Congress. EXHIBIT 2-15 Examples of Key Indicators Organizational Unit/Function Key Indicator Acquisitions Collections receipts, growth, copyright demands Arrearages Print or nonprint, comparisons to FY 1989 and last FY Collections Services Catalog record completed by type Congressional Research Service Requests, products Constituent Services Sales (in dollars), Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) use, loans, tours Copyright Office Claims, registrations, fees (in dollars) Cultural Affairs Outreach activities Human Resources Cases (new, resolved, and on hand), grievances Information Technology Online transactions Law Library Research reports (Congress or other Governmental body) Public Services Number of requests from each service unit - Data are provided for current and preceding quarter and show percentage change. - Most numbers are counts of items, transactions, or customer service. - Statistics are shown by organization, in both charts and tables. The proposed Phases II and III of the Key Indicators project appear to more closely reflect a functional approach to performance measurement, to provide useful information for management decision making and guide organizational performance. Phases II and III, however, have yet to be scheduled or initiated. Phase I data reporting became routine and senior management did not direct further action. Setting a time frame for these two phases was not part of the original Key Indicators project plan; no individual or group is responsible for this part of the project; nor does a more comprehensive approach to performance measurement appear to be a priority for Library management. The individual responsible for the Key Indicators project was reassigned in late 1995. A successor responsible for continuing the process has not been named, although the Executive Committee has commissioned some specific analyses. In addition to the Key Indicators project, Library managers and staff cited the individual performance planning and appraisal process as the principal means of measuring Library performance. As described to us, the annual performance plans for senior executives form the basis for translating institutional strategy into specific organizational objectives.14 The Library's overall mission, goals, and objectives are intended to be integrated into each senior executive's performance plan, which in turn dictates the performance plans of lower levels of management in a cascading fashion. In addition to establishing a process for developing annual performance plans and assessing individual performance against them, the Library has taken steps to attempt to link pay and performance. We examined 13 senior executive performance plans over 3 years (1993 to 1995) to determine the application of the performance planning and appraisal system. We found that whereas the regulation provides the ability to hold personnel accountable and link senior managers' performance to overall Library goals and objectives, the Library does not systematically implement the system. Exhibit 2-16 summarizes the implementation of the performance planning process for senior executives. Despite their stated intent, few performance plans are tied to the Library's mission in a manner that is measurable or prioritized. EXHIBIT 2-16 Summary Assessment of Senior Manager Performance Plans Of 13 performance plans reviewedI Yes Partially No Are they linked to Library strategy? 2 4 7 Are they measurable? 4 7 2 Are their outputs ranked or dated? 0 0 13 7. The primary institutional mechanism for feedback on or evaluation of program efforts is the tracking of the annual budget, which is not an effective mechanism for assessing the achievement of the strategic plan. Budget tracking and, to a lesser degree, the key indicators, have formed the primary means for the Library to measure performance and status. The quarterly obligations review gives the Executive Committee information on the status of spending and on additional or upcoming needs, and forms the basis for the reprogramming of funds, if necessary. In recognition of the need for more formal collection of information on program progress, the Executive Committee has requested several regular reports in addition to that on the status of funds. These include the following: 7 Key indicators pilot status 7 Security event report, plan, and implementation status 7 Human resources statistics, including diversity 7 Audit and investigation status 7 Pending legislation status 7 Pending acquisitions 7 Space plan implementation status 7 NDL status and Internet activities and issues 7 Litigation status. It is important to emphasize that although these regular reports provide important data to the Executive Committee, they lack elements of performance, in terms of both outcome (effectiveness) and process (efficiency). Based on our extensive interviews and review of planning documentation, we did not find a consistent, systematic method of evaluating program progress against the strategic plans and, therefore, did not find a systematic method of feeding this information to executive and senior- level management of the Library for incorporation into planning efforts. For the 1988 MAP study, we could find no formal evaluation and feedback on results, although the Library does appear to have reviewed the status of recommendations on an informal basis. We did find reporting against MAP recommendations in a March 1992 high-level internal memorandum that asserted that nearly 80 percent of recommendations had been addressed, but this was a "rough analysis." No formal process was used to determine status and progress. A February 1992 attempt to initiate a formal assessment of the status of recommendations was not pursued because senior management believed that most recommendations had been addressed. Before the Management Retreat of 1994, the Library did identify accomplishments against the Strategic Plan of 1992, but this assessment was not rigorous in its evaluation nor did it result in an ongoing, consistent means of evaluating progress against strategic goals. Similarly, the Management Retreat in 1994 did result in a draft integrated planning and program execution process, the Library of Congress Proposed Planning and Review Process, which was circulated to the management team for comment in March 1995, but has not yet been revised or implemented at the Library-wide level. Based on the documentation the Library provided to us, the Proposed Planning and Review Process represented the only formal proposal for measuring progress against plan that the Library has developed in the last 8 years. The lack of Library-wide processes for assigning, tracking, and monitoring the status of recommendations, progress, and improvement in performance limits the Library's ability to assess its accomplishments correctly and to make resource allocation decisions that optimize achievement of its strategic goals. As a result, the Library is unable, except anecdotally, to ascertain status, monitor progress, and take management action as appropriate. Issues identified in Library-wide initiatives, including MAP, the Strategic Plan, and the Management Retreat, are not routinely evaluated. A large proportion of the Library management that we interviewed voiced concern and frustration over the lack of follow-through on issues identified in Library planning efforts. Several of the senior managers also stated that they would be reluctant to embark on additional planning efforts until specific proposed actions have been accomplished. This unwillingness is an indicator of the level of concern and could further limit the effectiveness of the Library's planning efforts in the future. Managers report being unclear about how Library-wide priorities apply to them and their organizations. They are expected to formulate and execute their programs consistent with the overall institutional priorities (most recently described in the Mission and Strategic Priorities) articulated by the Librarian, but there does not appear to be a disciplined or shared process for fostering these linkages. 8. Whereas the Library overall lacks an integrated planning and program execution process, at the service unit level the degree of implementation of the integrated planning and program execution processes varies from limited to complete. As part of the assessment of the Library's processes for planning and program execution, we analyzed the processes at the service unit level as well as the institutional level. Exhibit 2-17 summarizes the results of our analysis for major functions for 1995. EXHIBIT 2-17 Assessment of Components of Integrated Planning and Program Execution Process Service Unit/Function Strategic Planning Annual Operating/ Tactical Planning Budget Decisions Performance Measurement Evaluation/ Assessment/ Feedback Library-wide Cataloging Preservation CRS Copyright Arrearages Technology NDL Human Resources Facilities Fort Meade Security The CRS has recently implemented an integrated planning, program execution, and performance measurement process. CRS's process is fairly new; it was introduced and implementation of it was begun in the fall of 1995. Evaluating CRS Work for the Legislative Work of Congress: Linking Performance Goals with Tidewater Strategies and Actions, documents the CRS approach for linking vision, mission, and values with goals, explicit strategies, and measures of performance. CRS management places a high priority on the implementation of this integrated planning process. CRS is working to improve its key indicators and other tracking and reporting mechanisms to better reflect and motivate performance. To varying degrees, other Library Service Units and Directorates have developed their own internal planning and program execution processes. The operations units of Library Services, such as Cataloging and Preservation, have made progress toward implementing all the elements of an integrated planning and program execution process, whereas infrastructure areas, such as Human Resources, Facilities, and Security have made less progress to date. Exhibit 2-18 describes selected examples of the planning elements in place for several functions. EXHIBIT 2-18 Summary of Planning and Program Execution Processes for Selected Library Service Units and Major Functions Service Unit/Function Strategic Planning Annual Operating/ Tactical Plan Budget Decisions Performance Measurement Evaluation/ Assessment/ Feedback Cataloging Published vision, mission, and goal statements. Has a detailed tactical plan, makes periodic revisions. Plans, assigns tasks, responsibility, and dates. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Developing performance measures, per tactical plan. Does not measure productivity and throughput. Measures and reports work outputs. Tracks progress against plan. CRS Held retreat for long-range planning; prepared strategic plan. Has an integrated plan of intermediate strategies and actions. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Holds meetings twice a week, performs customer-focused measures of output and efficiency. Performs regular tracking; communicates internally; adjusts priority to match requirements. Copyright Defined mission, goals, and values in the 1992 strategic planning retreat; takes a participatory approach Undergoes little change from year to year, but reflects Registrar's priorities. Internal division plans cite section objectives and completion dates. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Puts together teams and committees for process improvement. Gathers workload statistics. Has ongoing internal quarterly program reviews. Division plans. Preservation Set broad objectives during 1993 long-range planning. Prepared with limited implementation detail. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Limited to numerical counts of items processed. Processing time not measured. Managers recognize need for tracking and control system. Arrearages Addresses long-range program in library-wide and service unit documents. Sets specific numerical objectives annually. Defined resource requirements at start of multiyear project, but has not separately identified them since. Tracks numbers of items on quarterly basis. Does not systematically track procedural initiatives. Does not measure efficiencies of varying approaches. Holds periodic arrearage summits that assess progress and presents findings in an annual report. Technology Lacks evidence of a strategic plan. Has an existing draft tactical plan. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Uses a cumbersome work request log. Shows no evidence of performance measures. Holds sporadic evaluations. NDL Has 5-year plan that focuses on digitizing five million items, not strategic objectives linked to library goal. Has emerging work and program plans that employ a detailed project management approach. Estimates multiyear funding requirements, appropriations, and donations. Has a measurement program under development. Holds monthly status reviews that compare progress against plans. Has working groups that discuss technical and operating issues. Human Resources Lacks evidence of a strategic plan. Pays considerable attention to HR programs and annual activity. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Has measures to monitor implementation of CSP resulting from the Cook case. Tracks workload statistics. Holds sporadic evaluations. Facilities Lacks evidence of a strategic plan or master facilities plans. Lacks evidence of annual planning. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Apparently has no measurement system. Reports inconsistency on evaluations. Security Details objectives and actions, not responsibility or dates in the 1993 Strategic Plan Implementation. Has detailed operational plans. Uses Collections Security Committee to recommend resource needs. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Apparently has no measurement system. Analysis of security and changes to collections policy initiated by Acting Chief of Protective Services. 9. Unclear roles and responsibilities and lack of accountability for performance affect the Library's ability to implement and an integrated planning and program execution process. Library managers in more than two-thirds of our interviews in the course of this study attributed the Library's inability to systematically implement its plans to unclear or undefined roles and responsibilities and to lack of accountability. External observers from the Library community and Congress voiced similar concern. Many of the people interviewed cited uncertainty over roles and responsibilities and poor accountability as major reasons for the Library's not implementing its strategic plans. Examples of the deficiencies noted relevant to accountability and roles and responsibilities include the following: 7 Lack of a known point-person responsible for planning and policy analysis 7 Numerous changes to the Deputy Librarian position and lack of understanding across the institution about the role of that office 7 An 18-month vacancy for the position of Director of Labor Relations 7 Lack of a training director with a large part of the workforce nearing retirement 7 The division of responsibility for technology activities between ITS and the service units 7 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 7 The lack of authority to follow through of committee responsible for addressing Library-wide security issues. The effect of these examples of a lack of explicit roles and responsibilities and unclear accountability is a consistent inability to implement, follow through, and/or build on existing plans and identified problems. In examining institution-wide management practices at the Library, we sought to identify the organizations and/or personnel responsible for leading the implementation of key processes. From our review of documents outlining organizational functions, we could not identify the positions or individuals responsible for institutional management processes such as strategic planning and performance measurement. For example, there is no planning or policy function at the senior management level or within the Office of the Librarian. Responsibility for the institutional processes of planning, performance measurement, change management, or tracking assignments and action items across service units is not placed with a specific entity. A planning and development office was eliminated around 1989, and no other organization has consistently assumed its Library-wide, responsibilities.15 Appendix D lists other major organizational realignments and staff shifts. The lack of official charters or written guidelines contributes to confusion surrounding the role of the Office of the Librarian and staff, and of decision-making bodies like the Executive Committee and Senior Management Report Group. Official mission and function statements for elements of the Office of the Librarian have not been revised to keep pace with shifts in responsibility in that office.16 (The service units have, for the most part, revised their official mission and function statements as organizational changes have occurred). Many Library managers interviewed considered the Library's personnel performance planning and appraisal system to be the primary vehicle for ensuring accountability. As discussed above, we found little evidence that the performance planning and appraisal system, specifically that for senior executives, ties individual performance to institutional strategy and outcome. In addition, we found that appraisals are not consistently held in a timely fashion. Exhibit 2-19 summarizes the schedule for the senior managers' performance appraisals that we reviewed. Many appraisals lag behind the performance period by more than a year. For these to be more effective motivators of accountability and performance, the appraisals should occur on a regular annual cycle and be tied to the implementation of the strategic plan. Finally, there does not appear to be a consolidated means of tracking when performance plans are put in place, when progress reviews are conducted, or when final appraisals occur. EXHIBIT 2-19 Schedule of Senior Managers' Performance Appraisals Year Plans Time Elapsed Between End of Performance Period and Appraisal Assessed < 6 Months Within 1 Year Within 18 Months > 18 Months 1992 8 3 5 0 0 1993 10 0 2 5 3 1994 11 0 3 3* * * Of the 11 1994 performance plans we received, 6 appraisals had been held as of March 1, 1996. 10. The Library has recently sought to clarify its organizational and staff assignments in an effort to improve the consistency and effectiveness of its decision-making process. Within the past 6 months, organizational actions have been taken to address critical management issues of Library-wide integration, decision- making, and accountability. The Library reorganized to consolidate several functions and streamline organizational structure, shifted responsibilities in the Librarian's office (including the appointment of a temporary deputy), and created a senior Executive Committee to improve top management decision-making processes. The recent Library reorganization was directed primarily at realigning Library-wide support services and merging two principal operating units, Collections Services and Constituent Services, into one organization, Library Services. This realignment of support services reestablishes an organizational structure similar to that of the Associate Librarian for Management, eliminated in 1993. The consolidation of support services under one Associate Librarian was intended to provide institutional focus for improving the delivery of services, and to increase the accountability and integration of infrastructure provision with the needs of line Library organizations. Merging of Collections and Constituent Services was intended to streamline Library functions and increase their ability to perform roles that were similar across the two organizations. Exhibit 2-25 in our organizational structure section depicts the new Library Services organization. The creation of a senior management Executive Committee of six members to serve as the Library's primary corporate decision-making body was also a central part of the recent reorganization. Created because of concern about the ability of the larger management team (of approximately 20 individuals) to act decisively and provide direction, particularly regarding resource allocations issues, the Executive Committee is supported by a larger Senior Management Reporting Group. From the documentation reviewed and interviews with Library personnel, we established that the roles of the Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group are clearly evolving. Use of the Senior Management Reporting Group as a conduit to and mechanism for communication from the Executive Committee is an approach in the early stages of implementation. Several managers interviewed were optimistic that the Executive Committee structure would provide for a corporate voice and permit the Library to make difficult decisions and see them through. Others argued that the Executive Committee was not adequately representative of perspectives at the Library. At this juncture, the roles of the Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group appear too ambiguous to achieve their potential as leadership and decision-making bodies. 11. The Library has put in place a number of mechanisms to increase participation in the management of the institution; although somewhat effective, these mechanisms require further refinement. Library management espouses a participatory management approach. A broad network of task forces, working groups, committees, teams of volunteers, and a broad senior management team until recently, has put forth efforts to ensure participation in important Library management processes. Within service units, teams address operational issues on both a routine and an ad hoc basis. These teams have produced some important organizational initiatives to address specific issues within functions. These initiatives include cataloging innovations to address arrearages, process improvements, and activity-based costing in acquisitions and others. However, this participatory approach has not been supported by the institutional management practices that guide decision making and execution. Among the impediments to making this participatory intent fully effective are the following: 7 Teams and committees are too large (13 to 30 members) to be more than informational or agenda-setting 7 Team or committee leaders lack group or communication skills to lead teams to effective problem solving and decisions 7 Processes for timely communication, reporting, review, and funding support are not established. Numerous Library managers and staff interviewed communicated two perceptions regarding current Library decision making: 7 Getting clear senior management support for team decisions is critical, but difficult to obtain 7 Important decisions are made by small groups of senior managers through informal means, rather than through formally constituted mechanisms like the executive committee. Library staff told us that communication regarding decisions is often top -down and unilateral. Despite formal publications and informal channels of communications, Library managers and staff cited lack of strong interactive, two-way communications systems as an impediment to change. 12. In summary, the Library has not integrated or implemented all key components of a planning and program execution process in a systematic or consistent way. The links among the components of an integrated planning and program execution process, as depicted in Exhibit 2-11, provide for both implementation and integration across functions. At the Library, we found little evidence of explicit, widely accepted processes for achieving these linkages. For example, there is no comprehensive planning and program execution guidance for organizational decision making, nor is there a clearly designated individual responsible for that process. Priorities are not consistently translated into resource implications, nor are recommendations and progress in implementing them tracked in a manner to ensure accountability and accomplishment. The Library has in place several component parts of an integrated planning and program execution process. In addition, it has taken numerous steps and launched many initiatives to help address current challenges. However, Library management processes are neither integrated nor implemented in a consistent, systematic manner. Mission and vision are not supported by a framework for making decisions that is widely communicated and accepted throughout the Library. Our case studies, referred to throughout this section, support this lack of integration and implementation. 7 The National Digital Library program is focused on short-term results rather than on building a sustainable and supportable digital production and access infrastructure. It is managed as an isolated project, rather than as part of an integrated information strategy. 7 Planning for use of the Fort Meade facility is not part of a comprehensive facilities strategy, which would serve as the foundation for making decisions, obtaining project approval and funding. Site and facility type requirements were not clearly defined and agreed to prior to action, resulting in changing estimates of space needs and recommended approach, and preventing the Library from proactively solving its storage problems. % The Competitive Selection Process was redesigned, but resulted in a slow and cumbersome process, widespread dissatisfaction among customers, and subsequently, lengthy study. 7 The Library has a number of security 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. 7 Interest in arrearages reduction galvanized Library management and staff, but was not part of a system-wide look at performance that included all aspects of the process. The focus on item counts was not linked with resource requirements or customer needs. The Library approach to management has been characterized both by Library managers and staff, and by customers representing several different perspectives, as reactive and crisis oriented. What is perceived as repeated inability to move forward on major issues is in part due to lack of strong institutional management processes for implementing plans and ensuring follow through. This lack of attention to management process also prevents the Library from generalizing from service unit and directorate experience to fully take advantage of performance improvement and other initiatives underway in various parts of the organization. 2.2.4 Recommendations The recommendations below take into account the interdependent nature of management processes. They are intended to help the Library capitalize on its strengths, provide for integration across the institution, and, most important, build commitment to ensuring accountability, proactive decision making, and implementation. 1. Institute a comprehensive planning and program execution process that builds on elements in place and links plans to explicit mission elements and outcome-oriented measures of performance. The Library should put in place a comprehensive planning and program execution process that provides for linkage among the elements depicted in Exhibit 2-11. This requires the following actions: 7 Instituting a regular process for revisiting and updating strategy 7 Developing annual operating plans based on strategic planning and designed to guide budget decisions and program execution 7 Building on the key indicators effort to develop measures that provide useful information regarding organizational efficiency and effectiveness and are used to assess results achieved against targets of performance 7 Establishing regular mechanisms for providing feedback regarding performance, issue resolution, and potential future areas of concern and effectively using management information systems to this end. 2. Establish the capability for problem solving and decision making that improves the Library's ability to address concerns that cut across organizational lines and that integrates major support functions with line operations. To improve the Library's ability to respond to institution-wide issues and make decisions that affect multiple parts of the organization, the Library should take steps to clarify roles, responsibilities and authorities within the Office of the Librarian and service units, particularly for matters of institutional concern. The Library should also establish a small group, reporting to the Deputy Librarian, responsible for leading institutional initiatives. No staff function is devoted to development and implementation of an integrated planning and program execution process. Similarly, there is no independent policy analysis function that cuts across the institution. Responsibilities of this group would include the following: 7 Developing Library-wide guidance for planning and program execution processes, including seeking ways to integrate planning and resource allocation decisions and to develop better performance measures and feedback mechanisms 7 Making the most of the work of existing Library committees and task forces to ensure that expertise and analysis of major issues is used for decision-making purposes 7 Leading independent analyses of the program and resource implications of major decisions. 3. Establish the Deputy Librarian of Congress as a strong Chief Operating Officer and invest that individual with adequate authority to lead internal management processes. Part of the lack of institutional management processes for planning and program execution lies in issues surrounding the role of Deputy Librarian as Chief Operating Officer. The position and role of the Deputy Librarian has been the subject of some debate in recent years, reinforced by the short tenure of those who have served in that position since 1990 and several periods of vacancy. To focus efforts of the institution on implementation, clarify roles, and responsibility and increase accountability, we recommend that the Deputy be designated Chief Operating Officer (COO) with responsibility for implementing the Library's mission and goals. Similar to the role of COO in Executive Branch agencies,17 the Library's Deputy role would include the following: 7 Providing overall organizational management 7 Supporting efforts to develop and implement strategic and operational plans 7 Providing leadership for improvement or reengineering of support services 7 Championing the development and use of meaningful measures of performance 7 Providing operating linkages for external relationships built by the Librarian with organizations, customers and stakeholders, including the Library and publishing communities, scholars, and other national libraries, to leverage Library operations and include stakeholders in decisions. 4. Reinforce the decision making and leadership role of the Executive Committee and clarify the purpose of the Senior Management Reporting Group. The Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group structure has the potential to help address decision-making problems, clarify roles and responsibilities, and ensure accountability. The Executive Committee should be firmly established as a decision-making and policy-setting body with responsibilities for overseeing institutional direction and performance. Although the Executive Committee will necessarily have day- to-day operational management functions, its purpose should include paying more structured attention to long-term strategic issues, understanding their potential impact, and providing a focal point for implementation. It should review the Library's progress toward achieving its goals on a regular basis, with its focus being on identifying performance problems and areas of potential future concern. The Executive Committee should be supported by an active Senior Management Reporting Group, the role of which should be not only to contribute to the deliberations of the Executive Committee, but also to serve as the link between the Executive Committee and Library staff at large. The Senior Management Reporting Group would thereby take on an important role as the Library's management team for ensuring decisions are effectively communicated and implemented, policies followed, and issues raised in a timely manner. 5. Improve provision of support services (particularly technology, human resources, and facilities) and better integrate these functions into Library operations. Concerns about the ability of Library support services to provide adequate infrastructure for core Library processes has been raised consistently over the past several years. Plans, when developed, are generally not implemented nor are they integrated into Library operations. Efforts to improve the delivery of these services have met with mixed results. The Library should put in place a proactive process to reengineer support services, particularly in the areas of human resources, IT, and facilities. Such an effort to evaluate and redesign support services would include careful assessment of actual needs and would consider alternative means of service provision. 6. Institute Library-wide mechanisms to measure performance and monitor results. The Key Indicators project plan provides the basis for a more rigorous approach to performance measurement. The Library should move quickly to implement and expand on Phases II and III of the project and then develop a process that includes measures of output, productivity, and customer and employee satisfaction (using employee survey results as a departure point). The development of a performance measurement system should be an institution-wide effort that is used not only to inform management decision making, but to galvanize improved performance at all levels of the organization. The Library should ensure that meaningful measures are developed, targets of performance against those measures established, and results tracked on a regular basis. Management information systems should also be reinforced to better inform management decisions and make feedback routine. 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL PROCESSES As part of the overall analysis, BoozaAllen profiled the Library's major operational processes to provide a framework for understanding the organizational performance and the factors that influence it. 2.3.1 Background By focusing on the major operational processes, we developed an understanding of operational performance, organizational and infrastructure relationships, and management perspective. This understanding is the foundation and context for integrating other findings. 2.3.2 Methodology Our study of the Library's processes took two forms: profiling the Library's processes and detailed examination of the management of two collections (books and photographs). These efforts are explained below. 1. BoozaAllen profiled the Library collections management, copyright registration, and Congressional Research Service (CRS) inquiry and response processes. We profiled the following major operational processes: Acquisition and receipt of materials Cataloging Preservation Servicing (providing materials to requesters) Disposal Copyright CRS inquiry and response. The profiles are made up of flow charts, throughput data, and staffing data for the processes. These profiles are located in Appendices E, F, G, and H. BoozaAllen's approach to developing process profiles was straightforward. Using existing Library documentation (for example, work flow documents, various studies, and annual reports), we first developed tentative flows for the core processes. Using these flowcharts as a starting point, the team conducted interviews with Library staff to adjust, confirm, and expand each profile. Process information obtained from these interviews included: Steps and sequence Input Approximate time intervals Number and type of staff involved Results and outputs Information systems and databases used Decisions and decision-makers involved. BoozaAllen compiled this information, created the flows, and validated the profiles with Library staff. 2. BoozaAllen also examined how the Library manages its book and photograph collections. In addition to the overall profiling of collections management, we focused our examination on the monographic book and photograph collections. To accomplish this, we: Interviewed Library people involved at various levels of collection management Visited work and storage sites Observed work in process. We also attempted to track a random sample of books and two photograph collections received during 1995 from acquisition of the materials through entering them into service. The results of these two efforts contributed significantly to the findings and conclusions discussed in this section. The appendices for this section include detailed information and descriptions of the processes we observed and profiled. The remainder of this section on operational processes discusses our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2.3.3 Findings and Conclusions Our findings are grouped according to the conclusions to which they lead, as follows: Management of the collections management process Collection management infrastructure Management of acquisitions and integration with collections management Procedures for improving collections management. Our findings about the Copyright Office and CRS focus on the potential for operational synergism between the processes and resources used in those areas and those in collections. Appendices F and G, which focus on the Library's monographic book and photograph collections, complement the findings in this section. From the profiling efforts, we developed an understanding of the flow and characteristics of the major collections processes used in the Library. Essentially, the processes used in the Library are relatively simple, straightforward, serial processes. Little rework and in-process approvals exist because the tenured staff is experienced with the work of Collections, Copyright, and CRS (which is mostly knowledge based). The process used in collections has multiple entry points for the different media and acquisition sources, but for the most part the processes are similar for the different materials. Because the Library works with more than 400 languages, a broad scope of subject matter, various acquisition channels, and multiple types of media, a number of process complications and exceptions arise as the Library deals with the input variations and the knowledge required to process them. Historically, the Library has dealt with these complexities and variations by organizing resources along specialties of subject matter, geography, language, medium, and acquisition source (depending upon organizational unit). As the amount of published material and the scope of the Library's acquisition activities increase, and the number of resources with specialized skills decrease, the Library's collections process becomes stressed and requires alternative process, technology, and management solutions. For a more detailed explanation of the processes and the complexities with which the Library deals, please refer to the appendices. 1. The Library manages its collections on a functional basis and does not control or measure collection management as a process. The fundamental finding from our review of the operational processes is that the Library does not manage or approach collections activities as an end-to-end process. Instead of using a "process management approach," the Library manages divisions and directorates in a classically functional approach. Exhibit 2-20 illustrates the basic difference between functional and process management approaches: The functional management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving functions and resources along and within the organizational structure and components. The process management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving the effectiveness of a business process that uses organizational resources to deliver products and services. EXHIBIT 2-20 Process Management The concept of process management defines, organizes, and manages an organization and support structures in terms of processes rather than functional areas. 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 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 nonvalue-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. In practice, process management includes: Determining the effectiveness of the processes by using measures of workload, resource availability, utilization, output, and efficiency Managing the inputs to the processes Linking the process goals and plans with the organizational strategy and goals Assigning process "Owners" to oversee and manage the processes and the associated infrastructure support and systems. Typical results from process management practices include reducing congestion problems from mismatches between the workload of organizational units and their capacity, eliminating variability in workloads, and increasing the consistency in the way work is performed. Our profiling of the operational processes used in collections management leads to the conclusion that the Library does not manage its collections management process in this manner. The following Exhibit 2- 21 shows the collections management process of the Library today. Note that the collections management process is an end-to-end set of activities that crosses multiple organizational boundaries18 and is the single mechanism or channel available to deliver the Library's services. Our conclusion is grounded in the total understanding of the processes, as described in Appendix E of this section. The following findings help illustrate the basis of our conclusion. a. Reporting systems do not provide appropriate visibility of process drivers and controls. The reporting systems used in the Library are geared mainly to providing information for the Library's annual reports, measuring the levels of arrearages, and producing key indicators. Because the reported data do not relate to process controls or to the key process variables, we were unable to assess the efficiency or effectiveness of the processes we profiled. For example, most of the Library Services' key indicators are counts of inputs to the collections management process and work completed. These counts do not reflect such drivers as foreign language materials versus English language materials or work output relative to the Library's different roles. Many measures that we did find are unrelated to the core process (for example, reference queries), and such key process variables as throughput times generally are not reported.19 Exhibit 2-21 (This graphic not available electronically.) In addition, the various reports use different, largely irreconcilable measures, including: Measurement of receipts as either pieces or items Measurement of cataloging by titles or by actions (for example, full catalog record completions, recataloging actions, and name change actions) Measurement of preservation as bound books versus unbound books. b. Data for many key process variables are not captured by the current systems and, therefore, the process cannot be fully analyzed. The data systems used for creating bibliographic records and workload control do not contain sufficient data to allow measurement or analysis of many process variables, either within one process step or across the entire collections process. Because of this, we could not track items through the entire process and could not determine accurate processing times. The Multi-User MARC System (MUMS) is used to created bibliographic records of the collections, ranging from monographic books and serials to such special collections as photographs and sound recordings. Completed MUMS records include cataloging processing dates and priorities, but do not include data for acquisition, preservation, or servicing materials. Such data are inaccessible, which means that items cannot be tracked through the entire process. Appendices F and G address specific questions about the monographic book and photographic collections that illustrate this point. 2. The infrastructure support for collections management process is inadequately integrated. The infrastructure support for collections management inadequately supports effective management of the process. The existing information systems are not integrated, do not permit tracking of work in process or location of an item in circulation, and do not support maintenance of inventory records. Additionally, we found no controls or procedures for moving work and materials through the collections process. a. Individual process data systems are not linked. In Exhibit 2-21, we identified the automated systems used for work control in the collection management process. As illustrated in Exhibit 2-22, these data systems are not integrated. For example, data in ACQUIRE about the completion of processing of an item in the Acquisition and Support Services Directorate do not flow into a Cataloging Directorate STARS record. Not only must a separate record be created for STARS, but inconsistencies between output from Acquisitions and input to Cataloging occur (see Appendix G dealing with management of the general book collections). EXHIBIT 2-22 Unlinked Data Systems b. Data systems do not allow tracking of work in process or provide inventory records. As described in Appendix G, we were unable to track books through the process from acquisition to service. Some reasons why we could not track the books were: The record system for items being acquired does not link to the record system for cataloging The acquisition data appear to have entered ex post facto, in that dates of receipt by the Library often are later than the recorded start of cataloging Once cataloging of a book has been completed, the MUMS record does not indicate whether the book was unbound when it was received, precluding analysis of the processing required in the Preservation Directorate. Moreover, our attempt to track books through the process and other profiling efforts revealed that: Although there is a bibliographic record for each cataloged serial or book title and for lots and items in the special collections, there is no effective inventory system. The bibliographic record contains the requisite cataloging and classification data. While this record signifies that the Library has acquired and recorded the information, it does not enable the Library to locate the item if it is not stored on the shelf. Therefore, there is no effective means of controlling collection items. Except in Cataloging, there is no way to measure or track the time to process items in collections management. Except in Cataloging, there is no effective way to develop standards that could be used to develop consistency and best practices, because the data necessary to develop standards are not captured or tracked. c. Movement of work through the collections management process is uncontrolled. The Library typically uses trucks20 to move monographic books and serials through the collection management process. During our review, we found no standard procedure for determining when, by whom, or under what conditions a truck is moved between workstations. Numerous ad hoc practices and understandings among individuals at the various work stations govern the movement of trucks. We found no procedures, practices, or consistency for identifying what items are on a truck or tracking the movement of trucks between workstations. 3. The effects of acquiring large collections are not dealt with in a programmatic or systematic method. During our profiling of the collections management process, 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, the acquisition (input to the collections process) is not treated programmatically to understand and plan for the workload and the resources required to place it into service in a timely manner. a. Acquisition of large collections can overburden the collections management process. While profiling the collections management process, we frequently encountered references to large collections that were demanding attention and resources. Typically these large collections take a long time (on the order of years) to catalog and place into service, and many times require the borrowing of staff from multiple areas to process. Several examples are: Altschuler jazz record collection. The Library acquired this collection of an estimated 500,000 78-rpm jazz recordings during 1992. Currently, inventory-level cataloging of this collection is still underway, consuming the services of about 10 people from the Special Materials Cataloging Division of the Cataloging Directorate and the staff of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division. Look Magazine photograph collection. The Library acquired this collection in December 1971. During the 1989 arrearages census, the collection was estimated to contain about 5,000,000 photographs. Cataloging of the collection has been underway for about 2 years and will probably continue beyond 2000. Cataloging of this collection is consuming the services of about five catalogers in the Prints and Photographs Division along with scarce storage space. Eames papers. The Library acquired this collection of an estimated 280,000 pieces during 1994. As we learned during our walk-through of the photographs management process, this collection is one of the top processing projects in the Prints and Photographs Division. As discussed in Appendix I, the Eames collection is one of the processing projects with which our selected photograph samples (the Gladstone and Booker T. Washington collections) are competing for attention. b. Inputs to the collections, particularly acquisitions of large collections, exceed the capabilities of the Library's current or foreseeable resources to both process and provide proper stewardship. During our profiling of collections management, we noted that adequate storage space is not available for some of the Library's collections21 and some of the staff in Library Services are nearly overwhelmed by, and preoccupied with, digesting large collections acquired in the past. The issue of inadequate storage for collections is addressed in Section 3.1 of this report, dealing with facilities management. Library staff expressed concern that given these conditions, the lack of planning integration for acquisitions, and the continued acquisition of materials, the Library is not always able to fulfill its responsibility and provide proper stewardship for the items it collects. 4. Operating level improvement initiatives are not integrated along the collections management process. In our profiling and tracking of sample items through the collections management process, we found that the Library's culture fosters self improvement at the operational levels of the organization. This culture has resulted in a number of improvements in specific functions along the collections management process. We did not, however, find a coordinated plan or integration of the initiatives aligned with the collections management process or a higher level set of goals and strategies. As a result, the Library does not obtain the full benefits of its improvement efforts across the collections management process. Operating level personnel in Library Services have initiated a number of projects to improve procedures and services. For example, some directorates have created and executed plans to guide the improvement of work flows, alignment of staff/skills, automation and control of work and performance measurement, and reduction of workload drivers. For example: Institution of the ZIP+4 marking system for incoming Library mailing addresses to reduce the mail sorting workload in the mail room22 and expedite the delivery of U.S. Postal Service mail Screening proposed transfers of materials (Exchange and Gifts Division) to ensure that only items that might be wanted are sent to the Library (for example, reduction from about 11 million items per year to about 2 million items over a period of about 2 years) Piloting the use of combined bar code-security tape to permit tracking of work in process and replace heat-applied tapes by the more efficient pressure-applied tapes. Further examples of operating level improvement initiatives are the pilot organizations and work processes in acquisitions and cataloging, and carrying out surveys and discussions with internal and external customers. Most often, upper level management neither promotes nor constrains these efforts and, as such, they are either limited to a functional level scope or left unimplemented. However, for all of the initiatives examples cited and for many other initiatives of which we are aware, we found no link to an integrated effort focusing on improving the collections management process. Moreover, we found that: Automation initiatives are neither designed nor synchronized to address multiple needs along the collections management process (for example, across the organization-acquisition, cataloging, preservation, and servicing boundaries) Operations are continually hindered by: - Lack of information systems architecture and solutions pertinent to the entire collections process - Disconnects between facilities planning, acquisition decisions, and operational needs (for example, implementation of whole-acquisition teams). These conditions indicate that the initiatives we observed are neither driven by, coordinated with, nor supported by, an overall view and stewardship of the collections management process. 5. The cataloging functions in the Copyright Office and the Library are significantly different in both form and purpose, and offer essentially no cross-organizational processing benefits. The BoozaAllen effort looked at 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 than that performed for either the Library collections or the library industry. One way to illustrate this difference is to examine the data that is obtained and used within the Copyright cataloging process. The Copyright Office uses a system called COPICS to document and track items throughout its processing and operations, including its cataloging process. Of the COPICS's total of 23 data elements, only 6 have any possible overlap with the Library's MARC record. These elements (in COPICS terminology) include: Title and Statement of Responsibility Edition Statement Series Statement International Standard Book Number Imprint Notes. In general, the Copyright Office performs more of an indexing function than library cataloging. To have the Copyright Office catalog in the same manner as the Cataloging Division would require a substantial increase in complexity and work load for the Copyright Office. This would increase copyright processing times and costs, and would not yield benefits to the Library for the items not ultimately selected by the Library's Selection Officers. 6. Although CRS is markedly different from other parts of the Library, it faces some of the same challenges stemming from infrastructure support. Our profiling of the CRS led to an understanding of how the CRS handles congressional inquiries and its responses. We found that, to respond to congressional needs, CRS uses an organization aligned by specialty and subject matter along with a work logging and tracking system, Inquiry Status and Information System (ISIS), to track and count all requests and responses. Similar to Library collections management, CRS employed simple processes to address congressional requests for reference and research (shown in Appendix E). To help understand the basics of how CRS addresses requests, congressional inquiries come to CRS through three avenues: Directly to staff in the divisions (based on knowledge of and relationship between individual CRS and congressional staff members) Through the Inquiry Section, which assigns and distributes the inquiry to the appropriate CRS Division(s) Through the Congressional Reference Centers. Regardless of where the request enters CRS, it is input into ISIS for tracking, although many inquiries that go directly to Division staff and the Reference Centers are entered after the inquiry is answered. ISIS provides CRS the basis for its monthly reports on products and services delivered to Congress. After inquiries are received and negotiated23in the Inquiry Section, they are input into ISIS, reviewed, and transmitted to the assigned Division(s). A "fanfold"24 then prints in the assigned division, is reviewed and assigned to specific staff for action. The fanfold is then used as the mechanism to track progress and trigger additional information being entered into ISIS. In addition to the direct requests, CRS proactively identifies topics of congressional interest and creates reports and a body of knowledge in anticipation of congressional needs. From the profiling of the CRS, we identified two challenges for the organization: a. 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. CRS employs a number of systems to locate, retrieve, format, store, and distribute its products along with a system to track and report on the workload and on the responses for congressional inquiries. CRS uses the Public Policy Literature file (PPLT) as a full-text retrieval system for research ISIS is the current inquiry tracking system: ISIS 96 is a new, relational database tracking system that is being rolled out to CRS Divisions Both STARS and SCORPIO are used to store bibliographic information about CRS products Two areas of a database known as CRSX and CRSP are used to store bibliographic information on current and noncurrent products and confidential memoranda25 CRS operates the Research Notification System (RNS) used to notify CRS, GAO, and CBO of ongoing research for coordination purposes CRS maintains a homepage for access to its general distribution products.26 CRS has also initiated a number of new technologies that support the daily work flow and access to information, and speed up delivery of products and access to information for Congress: Both a Voice Response Unit and an Automatic Call Distribution center are used in the Inquiry Section to manage, route, and count incoming calls A homepage provides products to Congress in a swift, on-demand basis FAX-ON-DEMAND capability helps distribute short CRS products (for example, Reports, Fact Sheets, and Issue Briefs) Access to commercially available databases is being provided and coordinated to capture cost advantages ISIS 96 is being developed and piloted, and will provide a significant upgrade for CRS staff in that it will provide needed enhancements, allow two-way flow and input from both Inquiry and Divisions, and eventually replace the fanfold. Today, the tracking and work systems are not linked and integrated along the overall process used by CRS. Because of this, extra layers of work have been necessary for CRS staff to perform, track, and record their work as effectively as it is currently done. Today's use of ISIS and the manual flow of six-part fanfolds, although effective in providing output statistics, exemplify this issue as it requires additional work to capture data on the fanfolds, key it into ISIS, and then rekey some data to generate statistical reports. b. Although CRS tracks significant amounts of data, its focus and use of the information is more transaction reporting than process management. CRS uses ISIS to track and report a significant number of "key indicators" and these measures provide extensive information about the output transactions.27 This information includes the following: Number of products provided to Congress by product type Number of inquiries Distribution counts Congressional office coverage and service Number of seminar and training events. CRS uses the key indicators in many ways, from supporting budget requests to providing statistics on CRS output, to determining work load and resources and supporting recent CRS management decisions (for example, closing the Ford Reference Center). These measures, however, do not provide insight into content drivers required to determine and create a trend about how many inquiries or how much work was performed on a particular topic.28 (ISIS 96 will not be able to track by topic area either.) Similar to the processes and key measures in the collections management of the Library, CRS should include more of a process perspective in its measurement and management. 2.3.4 Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions from our process profiling, we have been able to summarize our recommendations about the operational processes into the following areas: % Define and manage the Library's operations from a process management perspective % Plan and manage special and/or large acquisitions as projects separate from the normal inflow of material. The three recommendation areas are discussed below. 1. Define and manage the Library's operations from a process management perspective. The processes in the collections of the Library are relatively simple, but complicated by the variations and special needs of media, language, subject matter, and source of the collection items. Currently, Library Services is organized and managed on a functional basis and measures statistics of work performed by the directorates and divisions. Nonetheless, the Library does not match and manage the relationship between the demands and profile of incoming materials and the requirements needed to process the materials. For the Library to treat and manage its operations as processes, it needs to accept concepts and set up systems that allow it to view the acquisition, cataloging, preservation, servicing, and disposal of collection items as one process that can be understood, managed, and balanced to the strategic direction of Library. To take a process perspective, the Library needs to: Understand, track, and manage the input volume and variations Plan the work and interpret process measures as an integrated cross- functional flow from acquisitions through to shelving Measure data that provide meaningful information about the controllable variables of the operations: - input by volumes and types - output by volumes and types - process performance in "touch time,"29 queuing time, transfer time, backlog, and efficiency variation in processing time and throughput location and status of materials while in process trends for both input/product type and subject matter Perform "capacity planning and management" that relates inflow of materials to the processing resources Develop and align specialized resources to handle specialized input needs Assign Process Owners/Stewards to manage and integrate the Collections Management process and its associated support structure and systems including: - the integration of existing systems (or the acquisition and implementation of an Integrated Library System) to support the end to end Collections Management process - establishing appropriate systems to control, track, and monitor the movement and condition of collection materials throughout the Collections Management process. One significant facet of the process perspective for the Library collections is managing and controlling the inflow of materials (through collection policies, government transfers, acquisition planning, electronic advancements, and greater industry role) and then equating the inflow of materials with the general and specialized knowledge-resources required to process them. 2. Plan and manage special and/or large acquisitions as projects separate from the normal inflow of material. In concert with the above recommendation to adopt a process management perspective and approach, the Library should treat the acquisition of large special collections as separate, individual projects. The Library should create a management process to balance the inflow (acquisition) of materials through better integration of acquisition policy, Library strategy, staff and facilities resources, budget, and prioritization. Through our study it became clear that, while Library Services has generally been able to handle the normal inflow of materials and has been successful, in some cases, at reducing the inflow of unwanted materials (for example, government transfers), the acquisition of special, large collections stresses the resources and causes delays and arrearages of unprocessed materials. For the most part, the potential acquisition of new collections (for example, "Look" magazine) is known well in advance but is not connected to, and hence planned for, relative to cataloging and facilities. Special project planning for acquisitions of new collections at Library should: Determine resources, time, and space required to process and maintain the new material Prioritize the materials against other pending efforts Budget appropriate resources for the material (people and facilities) Schedule work in accordance with the prioritization before new material is acquired. 3. Explore methods to change the work in cataloging and collections from performing original cataloging to facilitating, managing, guiding standards, and enabling the work to be performed by the information sources and end users. A significant portion of work in the process we observed is based on locating or providing access to information for others-either about a piece of published literature for cataloging or real time, up-to-date information to address a congressional request. The Library's historic work has been finding, assimilating, coordinating, cataloging, and indexing data created by others and transforming the data into orderly information presented for users. This is especially true in the collections areas where significant effort is expended to collect and interpret data to properly classify and catalog published works. Given the growth of published materials and the effort and space required by the Library to collect, catalog, and service them, the Library cannot be successful in the long term with its current views, concepts, and practices of collecting, cataloging, and servicing materials. The Library should explore redefining how it accomplishes cataloging (and potentially collecting) from performing original work to facilitating, managing, guiding, and enabling the work of those who provide material to the Library (such as publishers) and those who use Library collections (such as researchers). By using technology, training, cooperative agreements, and reengineering principles the Library could create mechanisms to share, redefine, and redistribute work along the industry value chain (that is, authors, publishers, distributors, libraries, and users) while maintaining and enhancing its leadership and standards role. Currently, the Library has operational initiatives that could be a departure point for this type of change (for example, cooperative cataloging efforts with other institutions and the Hispanic Acquisition Team guidelines for publishers) but these efforts have not been designed or undertaken with the intent of supporting this type of a shift. To further this needed shift, the Library should create a collections development strategy that goes beyond the current Collection Policy Statements and cooperatively guides and integrates acquisition and collections activity across national institutions. Ultimately, these efforts would span international libraries and institutions. 2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2.4.1 Background 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. Throughout this report, we discuss issues pertaining to the delivery of Library services. Organizational structure in part determines the ability of the Library to respond to these issues and concerns. This section consolidates organizational recommendations from other parts of this report. 2.4.2 Methodology BoozaAllen examined the Library's organizational structure by doing the following: We assessed the historical basis for the current Library organization. We reviewed past and current organizational structures and identified formal reorganizations, organizational realignments, and personnel shifts. We identified areas of this study where organizational issues were a major factor affecting the Library's ability to achieve its goals. Through this analysis, we distilled critical aspects of organizational structure that, if changed, would better support the Library. We considered trends in Federal government organizations and best management practices to identify opportunities for increased leverage in the Library organization. These trends are reflected in our recommendations. Research and analyses based on documentation available from the Library was supplemented by interviews with Library managers and staff about the impact of organizational issues on Library performance. 2.4.3 Findings and Conclusions The following section addresses Library organizational structure in three parts: past, present and future. 1. The recent past (from 1988 to 1996) is marked by three major Library reorganizations and numerous shifts in personnel assignments. Three major reorganizations of the Library of Congress have occurred since 1987. First, a substantial, Library-wide restructuring followed the Management and Planning (MAP) report and transition teams. This reorganization created the management team structure, established Collections and Constituent Services as separate services, and realigned support services to report to the management team and the Associate Librarian for Management. At this time, the planning and development office that reported to the Librarian was eliminated. Second, support services were also realigned. The Associate Librarian for Management position was eliminated (1993); Financial Services and ITS subsequently reported to the Office of the Librarian; Integrated Support Services was assigned to Constituent Services; and Human Resources was organized as a separate service unit. Third, this structure was changed in late 1995, as described in more detail below. In addition, numerous changes have taken place in senior management positions. This lack of stability in senior management posts raises questions about the Library's ability to follow through on organizational realignments. In addition, several managers interviewed stated that individuals and positions are not always well matched, thereby creating another reason for the frequent changes. An historical summary of significant organizational and senior management changes is included in Appendix D, "Selected Major Organizational Realignments and Personnel Shifts, 1988 to 1996." 2. The present Library organizational structure is based on a reorganization in late 1995 and early 1996 to address repeated concerns about ability to make decisions and hold people accountable. The Library reorganized in September 1995 as follows: It realigned Library-wide support services and merged two principal operating units, Collections Services and Constituent Services, into one organization, Library Services It realigned responsibilities in the Librarian's office and created a senior Executive Committee to improve top management decision making processes. Four main infrastructure support services-Financial Services, Human Resources, ITS, and Integrated Support Services (including protective services and facilities)-were realigned in September 1995 to report for a brief period to the Chief of Staff who later assumed the position of Associate Librarian for Support Services responsible for these functions. A new Chief of Staff was appointed in February 1996. This realignment of support services reestablishes an organizational structure similar to that of the Office of Associate Librarian for Management, eliminated in 1993. The recent Library reorganization, and the structure it replaces, is depicted in Exhibit 2-23. EXHIBIT 2-23 Library of Congress Organization Pre-September 1995 Reorganization March 1996 Other changes in the Librarian's office in the late 1995 to early 1996 period included redefinition of the Chief of Staff role so that it does not include direct management responsibility for support services. The incumbent Deputy was reassigned to internal education and training program development responsibilities, and an acting Deputy was named to focus on Library operations. As discussed in Section 2.2, Management Processes, the creation of a senior management Executive Committee of six members to serve as the Library's primary corporate decision-making body was also a central part of the recent reorganization. Created because of concern about the ability of the larger management team (consistency of approximately 20 individuals) to act decisively and provide direction, the Executive Committee is supported by a larger Senior Management Reporting Group. The memberships of the Executive Committee, Senior Management Reporting Group, and previous Management Team are compared in Exhibit 2-24. EXHIBIT 2-24 Team and Committee Memberships Late 1995 Early 1996 MANAGEMENT TEAM: Core Members Librarian of Congress Deputy Librarian Chief of Staff Register of Copyrights Associate Librarian for Constituent Services Associate Librarian for Collections Services Associate Librarian for Cultural Affairs Associate Librarian for Human Resources Law Librarian Director, Congressional Research Service EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: (Senior Management Decision Making Body) Librarian of Congress Acting Deputy Librarian Chief of Staff Director, Congressional Research Service Associate Librarian for Library Services Associate Librarian for Support Services Associate Members: Director and Affirmative Action Special Programs Director, Communications Director, Congressional Relations Office Director, Financial Services Director, Information Technology Services Director, Integrated Support Services Inspector General General Counsel Senior Advisor for Diversity SENIOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING GROUP: (Executive Committee plus 12) Senior Advisor for Staff Development and Staff Transition Associate Librarian for Human Resources Law Librarian Register of Copyrights General Counsel Inspector General Director, Congressional Relations Office Director, Office of Communications Director, Financial Services Director, Integrated Support Services Director, Information Technology Services Chief, Labor/Management Relations 3. Despite frequent changes in senior management assignments and organizational structure, the Library has been unable to address its infrastructure and support services problems. The Library has responded to management problems and concerns primarily through reorganizations and personnel shifts. The consolidation of support services under one Associate Librarian in February 1996 was intended to provide institutional focus for improving the delivery of services, the accountability of these services, and more closely linking them to the needs of line Library organizations. Previously, support service functions were organized differently: Integrated Support Services was part of Constituent Services; Human Resources Services was a service unit at the same level as the CRS, Copyright, and Collections; Financial Services and ITS were Directorates reporting to the Office of the Librarian. Library support services, including Human Resources, ITS, Facilities, and Security have been consistently identified as not being effectively integrated with Library operations. From the delineation of the MAP report issues, the 1994 Management Report focus on support services, the recent reorganization under a single Associate Librarian, to reports from interviewees and focus groups in this study, Library support services have been perceived as not effectively supporting Library operational managers, their key customers. A consistent finding among the Library support services in this review has been a lack of functional strategic planning and integrated, Library-wide operational planning that includes support services. This lack of integrated planning coupled with a lack of performance measures for support services to baseline and manage performance improvement has resulted in a broad perception of poor support service performance. 4. A broad span of control for some senior executives and multiple layers of management result in centralization of some operational decisions and lack of adequate guidance or direction in other cases. The September 1995 reorganization reduced the number of organizations reporting directly to the Librarian by consolidating operations in four main businesses-Library Services, CRS, Law Library, Copyright-and aligning support services under an Associate Librarian. The span of control of the Office of the Librarian also includes eight functions in addition to the four business lines and support services. These are Congressional Relations Office, the Office of Communications, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Personnel Security Office, Senior Advisor for Diversity, and, on a special assignment basis, the NDL staff. Merging of Collections and Constituent Services was intended to streamline Library functions and increase the ability to perform similar functions done before by several organizations. This recent action reduced the span of control of the Librarian while compounding the complexities faced by one Associate Librarian. Library Services now consists of roughly half of the Library's employees grouped in six distinctly different component parts, making it the largest single unit in the Library with multiple reporting layers responsible for all of the Library's collections and acquisitions and most public services. Exhibit 2-25 depicts this change. BoozaAllen was not able to investigate the operational effectiveness of this change because of its recency. EXHIBIT 2-25 Realignment of Library Operating Units September 1995 Our interviews with personnel across the Library, review of documents, and observation of Library processes indicated that the Library's current management structure and lack of clarity regarding what is centralized and decentralized result in several problems. In some cases, operating units report lack of flexibility, many layers of concurrence and review, and senior management intervention in day-to-day operating decisions that are generally the purview of line management. In other cases, employees reported their inability to obtain decisions on matters that had been raised for approval or comment. Finally, in yet other cases, Library staff reported very little guidance or accountability for overall Library program direction, policy, or execution. During our review of the Library, we found, for example, a lack of documented agreement or understanding about the types of decisions that needed to be raised for senior management attention and those in which staff were encouraged to take initiative. Senior management involvement in operational, program execution matters may occur to the detriment of the development of institutional policy, procedures, and guidelines that generally guide program execution. 5. The Library's functional organizational structure impedes its ability to integrate its operations and improve performance. One of the significant findings in the Operational Processes, Section 2.3, is that the Library manages its collections on a functional basis (acquisition, preservation, and cataloging rather than as an end-to-end process). Functional organization structures typically suffer from: Compartmentalization of activities and staff resources Minimal sharing of innovations Duplication of systems Extended work flows created by multiple "hand offs" of work from one organization unit to another Difficulty in tracking and measuring both processes and outcome of services. Similarly, other Library processes are managed functionally. Support services, including ITS, Human Resources, and Facilities, tend to be managed vertically within the support service itself rather than horizontally, across the organization being serviced. As is demonstrated throughout this report, elements of enabling infrastructure are not fully integrated into Library operations nor are services delivered in a manner that Library management feels is effective or efficient. This "stove-piped" organizational structure and operating approach, although typical of large organizations in both the public and private sectors, requires explicit attention to matters of institutional concern. Without formal, explicit, and rigorous means of managing across the organization, identifying synergies across functions, and instilling a customer focus, vertical elements in functionally structured organizations become increasingly insular. At the Library of Congress, this lack of institutional process ownership that would provide for this integration is evidenced in numerous instances, including the following: Policy, planning and program execution, as discussed in Section 2.2, Assessment of Management Processes Human resources and training, as discussed in Section 4.0, Human Resources Information technology planning, systems development and maintenance, as discussed in Section 3.3, Technology Usage Facilities management, as discussed in Section 3.1, Facilities Security, as discussed in Section 3.2, Security. 6. Transfer of the Copyright Office from the Library to another organization may not have major operational impacts, and the benefits of such a move are unknown. In this review, we considered the organizational relationship of the Copyright Office to the Library, and the potential for transferring Copyright from the Library to another organization. In addition, BoozaAllen analyzed the Copyright Office from a perspective of operational process and revenue contribution to determine potential synergies between Copyright and other Library processes. We did not assess the operations, efficiency or effectiveness of organizations outside the Library of Congress that might be considered potential targets for the copyright function. We considered four elements of the Copyright Office operations, including: The long-standing relationship between the Library and copyright Copyright as a source of material for the Library collections Linkages between cataloging for copyright purposes and for Library collections Revenue potential from copyright receipts. From this review, we concluded that there is little operational reason for housing the copyright function at the Library of Congress. However, the benefits from transferring it elsewhere are unknown. Since its creation 130 years ago, the Copyright Office has operated as an independent arm of the Library of Congress. One of the major benefits of this relationship is that copyright deposits are a significant source of material for the Library's collections. Selections officials with knowledge of Library collections criteria cull copyright deposits for items to be potentially transferred to the Library's collections. In 1995 alone, a total of 855,022 items30 were transferred to other parts of the Library from the Copyright Office (equivalent to nearly 34 percent of the Library's total of 2 million additions for 1995). These additions were comprised of both registered published and unpublished and non- registration published items. Most published materials that are submitted to copyright are transferred to other parts of the Library. The savings to the Library from not having to purchase this material is estimated at approximately $13 million per year. This source of materials could be protected even if the copyright function were not housed at the Library, but transportation and coordination aspects of any shift would need to be assessed, and would likely impose additional costs. Cataloging is performed in both the Copyright Office and as part of the Library's overall collections management process. Although these processes are both referred to as cataloging, their purpose and methods are substantially different. The Copyright Office performs more of an indexing or tracking function than the more complex subject and bibliographic cataloging performed in other parts of the Library. Copyright employs COPICS to document and track items through the copyright process. Of the 23 data elements included, six have potential for overlap with the Library's MARC record. We found little opportunity for synergy between the Copyright and other Library cataloging operations. The copyright function currently provides the Library with approximately $12.6 million in revenue annually. The potential for revenue from increased fees ranges from approximately $24 to $29 million. The Library would not realize these revenues if the Copyright Office were transferred to another organization. The Copyright Office also benefits from its relationship with the Library in terms of use of facilities for which no facility cost is incurred directly by the Copyright Office. Physical relocation of the Copyright Office could incur a cost to the receiving organization of leasing facilities of approximately $800,000 annually. 7. The relationship of the Congressional Research Service to the Library is not dictated by operational process interaction or opportunities for synergy. Another organizational issue BoozaAllen examined was the relationship of the Congressional Research Service with other Library operations. The CRS exists to deliver nonpartisan analysis, reference, and research to the Congress on topics that require currency and accuracy. As such, its processes are affected by significantly different responsibilities, constraints, and performance requirements than those of the rest of the Library. Consequently, the CRS obtains much of its information from sources other than the Library, and it organizes its operations differently. CRS does not generally rely on or make extensive use of the Library's collection materials. We found that most reports CRS created are continuous, living documents that require timely information and updates. In general, CRS does not rely on the Library collections, as books do not contain the most current information for the research CRS performs. The research divisions of CRS use mostly journals, serials, association and professional networks, sister-agency publications,31 and on-line services for their analysis and research materials. The Law Library is an exception, as CRS does utilize its collection but still maintains its own collection of legal resources necessary for research. Because CRS maintains the reference libraries in the Congressional Reading Rooms and Reference Centers and has had difficulty locating the Library serial materials in a timely fashion32, it maintains its own subscriptions and collection. Overall, CRS researchers do not rely heavily on Library collections. 2.4.4 Recommendations To address the Library-wide issues of integration and management accountability and to respond to overall review findings, BoozaAllen recommends the following organizational changes. 1. Focus management attention on implementing the current organizational structure with certain enhancements. Throughout this report, we identify problems with follow-through at the Library. These problems are evident in deficiencies in executing plans, implementing high-priority initiatives, integrating efforts across organizational lines, measuring progress, and learning from past experience. We found the same concerns across the Library organizational units that we examined, although to a lesser extent at CRS. Too often, managers attribute problems such as those identified at the Library of Congress to organizational structure and subsequently redesign the organizational chart. The new Library structure has been in place too short a time for anyone to fully evaluate its success in improving Library productivity and service delivery. The new Library Services organization may, in part, help the Library adopt a more integrated process approach by merging components of the collections management process into one organization. This provides a framework for moving to the team-based approach described below. However, the size of Library Services organization, multiple reporting layers and potential for loss of focus may impede Library ability to improve its performance and accomplish its mission. The Library should, therefore, assess the functioning of the Library Services organization on a regular basis to determine if it is an example of over-consolidation and should be structured differently. In implementing its organizational structure, the Library should also consider more actively pursuing outsourcing arrangements and alternative sources of expertise. In addition, shared services arrangements are another implementation approach that would help improve Library service provision, particularly for support services like human resources. A shared services approach distinguishes between corporate planning and policy functions and operational service delivery. A centralized corporate policy and planning function provides direction and guidance from a single source. Service delivery is physically decentralized to customer organizations but maintains its reporting relationship to the shared service organization. The organizational structure upon which our recommendations are based is depicted in Exhibit 2-26. The main changes include designation of a Chief Information Officer (see Section 3.3) and Chief Financial Officer, and realignment of reporting relationships to affirm the Deputy Librarian role as Chief Operating Officer. In addition, it calls for designation of leadership positions for institutional, cross-cutting concerns, such as facilities (Section 3.1), security (Section 3.2), and planning and program execution processes (Section 2.2). EXHIBIT 2-26 Recommended Organization We do 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 process and service delivery across the institution. The main elements of an approach to improve the functioning of the Library from an organizational structure perspective are discussed in the recommendations that follow. Although our analysis showed few strong operational links between Copyright and Library Services and between the CRS and Library Services, we did not find substantial evidence to support moving those functions from the Library. Rather, until a complete assessment is made of the costs and benefits, for both the Library and a potential receiving organization, of moving CRS and Copyright, any organizational shift should be pursued with extreme caution and considered premature. Restructuring those functions to other organizations is likely to cause severe disruption and damage to their service delivery. 2. 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. Our analysis of the Library's institutional management processes identified the need for improved integration of planning and execution. The Library has made several efforts to establish planning processes over the past several years that link strategic, operational, and functional planning and implementation. However, the shifting roles, inadequate accountability methods, and insufficient information for decision making have resulted in a lack of integration and follow-through. Clarification of the role of this position so that the occupant will have Library-wide operational decision-making authority as well as resources to perform as a COO should be a critical Library priority. As part of the strengthening of the Deputy role, the Executive Committee and service unit senior management currently reporting to the Librarian should report to the Deputy. A recommendation pertaining to the functioning of the Executive Committee is included in Section 2.2, Assessment of Management Processes. 3. Elevate the Chief Financial Officer's postion to focus attention on improving the Library's financial systems and controls. A comprehensive discussion of the financial operations of the Library and specific weaknesses found is contained in the Price Waterhouse report that was prepared concurrent with this report. 4. Establish a Chief Information Officer position to provide leadership in technology across the organization. The Library should establish a Chief Information Officer (CIO) position to help implement an effective IRM strategy that integrates the requirements of the Library's broad commitments to internal and external customers. The CIO should be an integral member of the decision-making management team and should be included as a member of the Library Executive Committee. Information technology support infrastructure is the most fundamental enabling capability for the Library to effectively function in the information age. Technological innovations currently provide methods for increasing efficiency and productivity of selected functions but are now essential for performing nearly all the basic Library functions. The most fundamental Library-wide infrastructure is the information infrastructure. Library operations are information and transaction intensive. A significant weakness of the Library of Congress is its current IT infrastructure as identified in Section 3.3, Technology Usage. Addressing this issue to position the Library for the rapidly evolving IT environment, as well as transformation of the role of the Library to an information broker, requires leadership and Library-wide focus. The CIO role might also include serving as a catalyst and integrator of Library research and development processes. 5. Assign leadership and responsibility for major processes to "process owners" or "process champions" who have authority to provide leadership across organizational lines. Ensuring that the Library's management and operational processes are effective and continually improving requires specific assignment of responsibility for "process stewardship." We recommend that explicit process owners be established in three areas. The problems in these areas are discussed throughout the report. The Library should consider applying this approach to other issues and institutional concerns as well. The Library should designate a senior official should be designated to lead the development and implementation of a comprehensive, integrated planning and program execution process. The most fundamental Library management process requiring stewardship is strategic and operational planning, and implementation. Whereas there is some organizational cynicism regarding planning at the Library because of a sense of lack of integration, follow-through, and accountability, the Deputy Librarian should be tasked with establishing effective Library-wide planning processes executed to ensure accountability and implementation. This effort should include designating staff for developing and coordinating the implementation of an integrated planning and program execution process, with explicit attention to performance measurement and tracking. The Library should designate senior leadership and responsibility for Library security. Process ownership concerns also have been raised in the security area, as Library-wide security is not the responsibility of a single individual. Collections security is the responsibility of the division chiefs, collection managers, and Library officers who have custody of the materials. The Protective Services organization has the responsibility to assist in maintaining a security controlled environment. The guard force and security systems for Library facilities or collections located off of Capitol Hill are not the responsibility of Protective Services. The collections security officer, or similarly designated leadership position, would be charged with protecting the Library's collections from all forms of risk. The Library should assign a senior executive with the lead role and responsibility for facilities management. Resident in the support services organization, strengthening this position will help the Library plan and execute facilities decision in a more proactive, efficient and integrated manner. 6. Implement a process- and team-based organizational structure within Library Services, and potentially, other services. The current Library Services organization is a large (approximately 2,100 employee), hierarchical, functionally based organizational structure with more than 200 organizational units (6 directorates; approximately 50 divisions, offices and projects; and more than 150 sections). Whereas this organization was recently established to achieve greater coordination and integration, without a significant organizational thrust toward integration, the barriers and junctions identified throughout this report will continue to persist. Library Services should move to extend team organization pilots, which have been in place for many years throughout the collection management process. The success of this team approach is a function of strong leadership and development of team skills to ensure follow through and innovation. Overall, Library Services needs to identify the appropriate team/organizational relationships and levels to assist in overall collection management processes. Currently the Library does not manage the relationship between the demands for and requirements of processing incoming material. As noted in the Section 2., Assessment of Operational Processes, the systems and infrastructure support tools are not integrated to facilitate and track work from the beginning of the major process through to the end (for example, acquiring, processing, and servicing collection materials and receiving, researching, and replying to congressional inquiries). The Library should expand and implement the whole-team approach piloted in acquisitions and cataloging and adopt an organization of process and support teams aligned with the major process. This type of structure and alignment would enable and facilitate both a process management focus and the development of integrated tools. A process- and team-based structure would assist in removing barriers between sections and divisions throughout the processes, assist in formulating indicators for process-wide measurement and performance strategies for planning and measuring improvement. Process-based structures also provide greater flexibility to staff for identifying and addressing process bottlenecks. 2.5 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. In order to frame the discussion and understand the issues involved, we selected to explore in detail four services that the Library provides: Full recovery of copyright registration costs-an analysis of all costs related to registering a claim with the Copyright Office and a determination of the unit cost derived from the full cost Charging publishers a fee for cataloging-an analysis of the full cost to catalog a book and a determination of the unit cost to be charged Charging commercial researchers a fee for using Library services and facilities-an analysis of the cost of supporting commercial researchers and their requests Charging fees for interlibrary loans-an assessment of the costs associated with fulfilling loan requests from other domestic libraries. The major purpose of the review of the four service areas is to determine the potential for additional revenue and to explore the issues related to increasing existing fees or implementing additional fee-based services. 2.5.1 Background The Library began assessing potential fee-based services in 1988 in the Management and Planning (MAP) report; the Arthur Young report of 1989 further explored potential fee-based services. Whereas these studies identified services that could provide additional sources of revenue, they did not fully investigate, evaluate, and recommend the opportunities and the revenue potential. This analysis investigates more fully the opportunities and issues related to the four service areas. The specific objectives include the following: Determination of the revenue potential Assessment of Library's cost accounting data and support structures required to implement fee-based services Analysis of legislative/stakeholder issues, which affect implementations Analysis of other options for providing the services, such as outsourcing Comparisons with benchmarks/best practices from similar organizations. The four services selected for analysis can be considered representative of the types of fee-based services the Library might pursue to increase its revenue base. As such, the analysis of the selected services illustrates the Library's concerns in implementing fee-based services and provides a framework for qualifying and assessing revenue opportunities. 2.5.2 Methodology To assess the revenue opportunities represented by the four service areas, BoozaAllen developed an approach that focused on the key data and assumptions behind the delivery of the services. Our methodology followed two major tracks: financial cost analysis; legislative and stakeholder analysis - focused on possible reactions to fee-based services and the effects on revenue. We used three major sources of financial and cost data: budgets for the service units or divisions involved; General & Administrative overhead rates, calculated by Price Waterhouse in 1994; and estimated facilities costs, based on the work done by the Facilities Team in this study. In evaluating opportunities for revenue-generating services, we did the following: Weighed the benefit of additional revenue against the risk of a decline in demand for these services as fees increase Considered the arguments of constituents who would oppose the charging of fees for services that have been historically subsidized by taxpayer dollars Reviewed the legal authority to charge or change fees and reviewed draft and proposed legislation related to the charging of fees Evaluated each revenue opportunity within the broader context of the Library's overall mission, to mitigate the risk of recommending a change in fee structure that could fundamentally undermine a separate but critical element of the Library's mission Assessed some practical components of introducing or changing fees, such as the following: Training staff to adopt more of a business mentality as opposed to the service mentality that exists today Enforcing new fee-based services, especially taking into consideration the large definitional issues around some of the areas proposed for review. Financial and Cost Analyses For each of the services studied, we conducted interviews in the relevant organizational units to obtain information BoozaAllen needed to allocate costs for an effective analysis. Using the data available and the assumptions we established, we developed cost models for each of the areas. We developed an overall cost model based on full allocation of costs and then conducted sensitivity analyses to determine the ranges of costs and their potential impact on the Library and the affected users. In addition to examining the financial data, we also examined the supporting financial mechanisms that allow effective maintenance of fee- based services. Legislative/ Stakeholder Analysis Similarly, we assessed the legislative environment in which the Library would be introducing the potential fees. We reviewed draft legislation related to fee-based services for the last 5 years to understand the concerns that have led to changes in the proposed legislation. We also reviewed the testimony key stakeholders gave during the hearings. We supplemented the testimony with targeted interviews and with the Mission Focus Groups, which directly addressed services and fees as part of their review. Based on the financial and cost analyses, we developed individual cost and revenue models for each of the products studied. From these models, we developed the analysis of the revenue potential and the issues the Library faces in implementing fee-based services. These analyses form the basis for the findings and conclusions outlined below. 2.5.3 Findings and Conclusions 1. Opportunities to increase the revenue stream of the Library of Congress do exist and vary significantly in the level of additional funding they may provide. Exhibit 2-27 summarizes the overall revenue potential associated with recovering full costs in each of the four areas we analyzed. As the exhibit indicates, we provide a range of potential revenue for some areas. This range reflects the fact that different assumptions lead to different results for full cost recovery. As the table indicates, we have not estimated the revenue potential from charging commercial researchers. Because the Library service units or divisions do not maintain any records regarding the number of commercial researchers who exist or the amount of staff time committed to supporting them, it is extremely difficult to estimate revenue for this service. We did, however, estimate an hourly rate that could be charged to commercial researchers. This hourly rate is discussed as part of the unit cost analysis, which follows. EXHIBIT 2-27 Overall Revenue Potential Based on Full-Cost Recovery Fee-Based Service Current Fee Receipts ($000) Potential Revenue Under Full-Cost Recovery ($000) Copyright Registration33 12,60034 24,000 to 29,40035 Charging Publishers for Cataloging 0 7,500 to 7,600 Interlibrary Loans 0 578 to 67836 Charging Commercial Researchers 0 Not Available TOTAL 12,600 32,078 to 37,678 To derive the potential revenue, we developed a cost model to analyze the full cost of the services. This cost model is shown in Exhibit 2-28. To evaluate the total cost of the resources required for each service, we used budget appropriations for FY 1995 for each of the service areas. Based on our interviews with key representatives of the relevant service areas, we developed assumptions on how services were provided. From the assumptions, we developed allocation rules and distributed the costs across the products and services. EXHIBIT 2-28 Cost Model Cost Category Allocation Basis Copyright Registration ($000) Charging Publishers for Cataloging ($000) Interlibrary Lending ($000) Charging Commercial Researchers ($000) Compensation/ Benefits FY 1995 Budget 22,163 34,301 468 Not Available Travel Usage 87 86 Not Available Not Available Postage/ Telephone Number of Employees 795 86 110 Not Available Printing/ Photoduplication Number of Employees 175 58 Not Available Not Available Other Services Number of Employees 294 170 Not Available Not Available Office Supplies Number of Employees 208 0 Not Available Not Available Books & Materials/ ADP Equipment Number of Employees 122 21 Not Available Not Available Subtotal (FY 1995 Budget) 23,844 34,722 578 Not Available Overhead Percentage of Compensation/ Benefits 4,743 7,340 100 Not Available Facilities (On-site Cost) Cost per FTE 0 0 0 Not Available Subtotal 4,743 7,340 100 Not Available Total Cost 28,587 42,062 678 Two key findings came out of our analysis of FY 1995 appropriations. First, we learned that the Library budget does not allocate overhead costs fully to each of its service units. As a result, the budgeted amounts do not incorporate a significant portion of the actual costs of the service, such as overhead costs associated with paying for custodial services, protective services, and utilities. Nor do budgeted amounts provide for lease payments by any of the services (the Library occupies buildings that are fully paid for and maintained by the Architect of the Capitol). Therefore, to account for all costs and assess the cost impact of potentially moving certain services off-site, we added the following indirect costs: Overhead-based on the rates computed by Price Waterhouse for the Library in March 1994 Facilities-based on estimates provided by a commercial real estate agency for leasing space if Library functions were moved off site. Second, we learned that the Copyright Office derives its total budget figure from a functional breakdown of the office. In other words, separate budget figures exist for the divisions that support the basic registration, the acquisitions, the licensing, and the arbitration functions. By contrast, the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) division, the loan division, and the various divisions that support commercial researchers do not receive detailed budget figures from their service units. Accordingly, for interlibrary loans and commercial researchers, we broke down the service unit budget to estimate costs associated with the individual divisions we studied. After developing the full-cost model for each service area studied, we performed sensitivity analyses against the model to demonstrate how changes in the way services are provided would affect both potential revenue and the potential fee. Exhibit 2-29 provides descriptions of the sensitivity variables we used for each service. EXHIBIT 2-29 Sensitivity Variables Service Area Sensitivity Variable Description Copyright Registration37 Full Cost On Site Allocates full cost based on number of claims; assumes service unit remains on Capitol Hill Full Cost Off Site Allocates full cost based on number of claims; assumes service unit moves off site Productivity Improvements On Site Copyright Office estimates current staff operates at 80% productivity; reduces labor cost by 20%; assumes service unit remains on Capitol Hill Productivity Improvements Off Site Copyright Office estimates current staff operates at 80% productivity; reduces labor cost by 20%; assumes service unit moves off-site Claim Type On Site Allocates full costs based on resources consumed by claim type; assumes service unit remains on Capitol Hill Claim Type Off Site Allocates full costs based on resources consumed by claim type; assumes service unit moves off site Charging Publishers for Cataloging Full Cost Allocates full cost by divisions within service unit; assumes service unit remains on Capitol Hill Off Site Modifies facilities cost assuming service unit moves offsite Interlibrary Loans Unsubsidized Assumes libraries pay only for their own filled loans; Congressional requests paid through appropriated funds Unsubsidized Without Indirects Same as unsubsidized; excludes indirect costs Subsidized Assumes that filled requests to libraries subsidize filled requests to Congress Subsidized Without Indirects Same as subsidized; excludes indirect costs Charging Commercial Researchers Loaded Hourly Rate Includes overhead costs in deriving hourly rate Unloaded Hourly Rate Excludes overhead costs in deriving hourly rate Exhibit 2-30 summarizes the impact on potential revenue when analyzing full cost against one of these sensitivity variables. EXHIBIT 2-30 Potential Revenue Using Sensitivity Analyses Fee Based Service Current Revenue ($000) Sensitivity Analysis ($000) Copyright Registration Full Cost On Site Full Cost Off Site Productivity Improvement On Site Productivity Improvement Off Site Claim Type On Site Claim Type Off Site 12,600 28,600 29,400 24,000 25,000 28,600 29,400 Charging Publishers for Cataloging 0 On Site 7,500 Off Site 7,600 Interlibrary Loans 0 Unsubsidized Unsubsidized w/o Indirects Subsidized Subsidized w/o Indirects 678 578 1,600 1,400 Charging Commercial Researchers 0 Loaded Hourly Rate $28.58/hour Unloaded Hourly Rate $23.54/hour In many instances, the Library receives benefits in kind from the customers of the services we evaluated, such as copyright registration and cataloging. The value of these benefits in kind should be considered when deciding to set fees that recover full cost. Exhibit 2-31 takes into account offsets for the value of the items obtained for the Library through each service and provides revised estimates of potential revenue, assuming offsets: For copyright registration, this value consists of materials kept by the Library for its collections. While different figures exist within the Library for this value, the best estimate appears to be $13,296,000 annually.38 This figure is lower than the $20,158,594 cited in the annual report of the Copyright Office. This difference is due to the fact that Copyright, for its annual report, counts items using the definitions of the copyright system. Additions to the collections are counted using conventional library definitions of materials, which reduces the quantity and the unit price used to value the items.39 With respect to interlibrary loans, the Library borrows less than 2 percent of what it lends. Items borrowed service the Congress and internal library uses exclusively. We assumed a quid pro quo reaction from the library community when calculating the offsetting value for this service. In FY 1995, 353 loans were made to the Library. Assuming the same interlibrary loan rate we estimated, the value of loans to the Library approximates $11,000. Using the average price per book in calculating part of the copyright registration figure, we estimated that the value publishers provide for cataloging through the Library amounts to $1,670,000 annually. EXHIBIT 2-31 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 Registration40 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 Not Available Not Available Not Available TOTAL 12,600 32,078 to 37,678 14,977 17,101 to 22,701 To evaluate the effect of increasing fees or introducing fees for services that are currently provided gratis, we looked at the change in unit costs from a customer's perspective. Under this analysis we developed a proposed hourly rate to charge commercial researchers. Calculation of this hourly rate is based on the following assumptions: The average grade of a reference librarian is GS-12 Benefits and overhead costs are incorporated in the rate Reference librarian demands on their management staff are minimal, resulting in no allocation of division management costs to the hourly rate Equipment depreciation costs cannot be estimated for individual divisions. They are not included as they are borne by the service unit Since commercial researchers are likely to use more than one reading room, we derived a single hourly rate. Exhibit 2-32 outlines current fees and potential unit costs/fees under full-cost recovery. For the four services we studied, this exhibit compares proposed unit costs to the costs of related services provided by other institutions and research libraries. The proposed unit cost/fee assumes full cost recovery. EXHIBIT 2-32 Potential Revenue Unit Costs Fee-Based Service Current Unit Fee Proposed Unit Fee Fee for Similar/Alternative Services Copyright Registration41 Serials Group Serials Group Daily Newspapers Textual Material Motion Pictures Performing Arts Sound Recordings Renewals Visual Arts Supplementary Info. Mask Works $20 $10 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $38-$47 $10 $38-$47 $38-$47 $38-$49 $38-$47 $38-$49 $38-$53 $38-$52 $38-$414 $38-$420 % The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) maintains a fee schedule with 145 fees; 40 of these fees include different amounts for small and large entities. Fees range from $0.25 to $2,990. PTO has statutory authority to change fees annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. % Although the Copyright Office does not currently charge a fee by claim type (excluding group items), some Library services such as the Photoduplication service do. Photoduplication distinguishes fees both by service (i.e., black and white, color, and other) and by basis (i.e., fee per job, per item, or per hour). Charging Publishers for Cataloging Fee per CIP $0 $185-$189 % In 1993, OCLC estimated a fee of $36/book based on an hourly rate; they believe they could now offer the service for less. % Quality Books offers a graduated fee schedule as follows: - 30-day turnaround - $30 - 10-day turnaround - $50 - Express/3-day turnaround - $75 They currently absorb those publications the Library will not take, like those of self-publishers, but probably could not handle the Library's CIP volume. Interlibrary Loans Filled Requests $0 $28-$32 % The following members of the Association of Research Libraries charged fees ranging from $10 to $43 for interlibrary loans in 1989. Adjusting +22.9% for changes in the Consumer Price Index, in 1996 estimated fees range from $12 to $53. Colorado Technical Reference Center Georgia Institute of Technology University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Washington Charging Commercial Researchers Cost per Hour $0 $24-$29 % Fees for free-lance researchers vary considerably by division and by researcher. For example, we received the following quotes from a sample of researchers polled: Newspaper and Current Periodicals: - Fee set by customer - $10/hour - $65/hour or $325/day - $35/hour with a 4-hour minimum - $60/hour; $100/hour for 1st two hours Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound: - $250/day - $250/day - $300/day - $50/hour 2. Two of the services studied-interlibrary loans and assisting commercial researchers-have a low volume, thus limiting their revenue potential. As the Library of last resort, the Library of Congress lends relatively few items to other libraries and lends mostly to Congress. In FY 1995, the Library filled 32,000 of 40,000 requests made from Congress, compared to filling 21,000 of 46,000 requests made from other US government or US research libraries. The Library received 38,000 requests for material from US research libraries and 8,000 requests from US government libraries. Unless the fee for loans to other libraries would subsidize the cost of loans to Congress, the revenue from 21,000 loans (filled requests) to libraries remains quite small-under $700,000. In serving commercial researchers, most divisions in the Library have limited themselves to requests that can be handled quickly, usually within a 2-hour time frame. Any request demanding greater attention is generally referred to a list of outside researchers, resulting in de facto outsourcing of commercial research. Accordingly, charging commercial researchers a fee for research would most likely not offset current appropriations. Rather, the additional revenue would be offset by additional costs for performing research that currently is not performed. 3. Significant revenue potential exists for the other two services studied-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 (Exhibit 2 -33), the effect of increasing or introducing fees for these services may adversely affect that part of the Library's mission that deals with building its collection. Since 1948, Congress has decided not to recover full costs of copyright registration. This finding is supported by Exhibit 2-33, which provides a chronology of copyright law changes and testimony. EXHIBIT 2-33 Evolution of Copyright Law Date Source Key Points 1965 House Report No. 895 in support of H.R. 2853, which became law in 1965 and increased fees to $6 per claim From 1909 to 1942 copyright fee receipts exceeded expenditures. House testimony cited concern to keep Copyright Office in a "self- supporting position." The Copyright Office estimates that enactment of H.R. 2853 would result in an 80 percent return to the Government of dollars appropriated to Copyright. The previous fee increase was in 1948; the year following this increase, fee receipts amounted to 102 percent of appropriated funds. Senate Report No. 814 in support of H.R. 2853 The Committee believes a "reasonable percentage" of the Copyright Office costs should be borne by beneficiaries of its service. The Committee felt the proposed 1965 fee increase was "reasonable and warranted." 1976 Revised Copyright Law Justification for Copyright fee increase to $10 could not be found. 1989 House Report No. 101-279 in support of H.R. 1622, which became law in 1990 and increased Copyright registration fees from $10 to $20 The copyright fee schedule was changed to account for inflation. The proposed fees would embody the ratio whereby beneficiaries bore 66 percent and taxpayers bore 33 percent of registration costs. An amendment offered to increase fees to actual costs (100 percent) was defeated by a voice vote. Statement by the Register of Copyrights in support of H.R. 1622 This statement sought to reestablish the 1976 law's notion of the proper proportion of copyright costs borne by beneficiaries and borne by taxpayers. Cataloging currently is at the heart of what the Library does and, from the Library's view, forms an integral part of its mission. Charging publishers for cataloging may, therefore, implicitly change this mission. The relationship between the Library's mission and fee-based services is explored further in this section and in the section on mission. 4. The Library does not have the financial mechanisms in place to the extent necessary to support additional fee-based services. Charging fees for services works best when the appropriate financial structures, such as revolving funds, are in place. Under a revolving fund mechanism, the limitations imposed by annual appropriations are relieved. Managers can better control their resources, monitor their costs, and track performance. Most important, divisions can create reserves for slow periods and develop strategic plans that address productivity objectives across fiscal years. The Library also does not have the fee collection and reimbursement mechanisms in place for any of the services studied, other than for the Copyright Office. The costs of establishing these mechanisms need to be estimated and included in the analysis to assess the real revenue potential from these services. The Loan Division currently uses On-Line Computer Library Center (OCLC) accounts to charge the Smithsonian Institution for expedited service. Rather than preparing a bill for the Smithsonian, the Library uses OCLC to credit its account and debit the Smithsonian's account for the amount of the expedited service charge, thereby saving the administrative steps associated with preparing fund transfers. Because many of the libraries to which the Library of Congress loans materials are also OCLC members, the Library could potentially expand this account transfer mechanism to provide an effective means of charging and accounting for interlibrary loans. 5. The Library does not develop detailed cost data for individual divisions, nor does it have a framework for determining which possible fee-based services have strong revenue potential. Although some of the service units we studied could provide comprehensive budget data, cost data were less readily available. This is largely the result of the disparity between appropriating funds at the service unit level and evaluating costs at the division level. This distinction made it difficult for division chiefs to provide detailed cost data associated with their divisions. Furthermore, none of the division chiefs we interviewed received management reports detailing the costs associated with their divisions. Perhaps most significant was the distribution of overhead costs, which are not proportionally allocated to all Library service units and therefore had to be estimated for individual divisions within a service unit. Related to the lack of comprehensive cost data is the fact that the Library does not have an effective means of assessing opportunities for fee-based services and determining which ones have the greatest potential. The Arthur Young report of 1989 outlined a number of potential fee-based services. Before the Library pursues any opportunity vigorously, however, the opportunity should be evaluated against a set of criteria including total revenue potential, unit cost to the user, legislative issues, and potential reaction from customers and stakeholders. Performing a more thorough assessment to qualify the opportunities will allow the Library to focus on those with the greatest potential for realization and to establish effective strategies for implementation. 6. The Library does not have the pricing mechanisms in place to the extent necessary to support additional fee-based services. For comparative purposes, BoozaAllen also interviewed personnel in several of the areas in the Library that currently charge fees for their services. We found no consistent pricing methodology for establishing those fees, particularly where calculating hourly rates is concerned. In the Cataloging Distribution Service, fees are established through price recommendations developed by the Fiscal Officer. These price recommendations are based on a manual calculation of the marketing and distribution costs for a particular product and include an estimate of future sales volumes. The Photoduplication Service uses an activity-based costing approach to develop more than 40 separate fees for the copying services it provides. Photoduplication calculates hourly rates assuming 1,177 annual direct labor hours per employee. The difference between total annual hours of 2,080 hours and annual direct labor hours of 1,177 (903 hours) was assumed to account for holidays, annual leave, sick leave, lunch, breaks and 1.5 hours per day "unaccounted for." The Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division calculates hourly rates assuming 80 percent productivity and 1,675 "available hours per year." The 20 percent reduction of available hours allows for training and other contingencies. The resulting hourly rate is effectively based on 1,340 annual direct labor hours. The Copyright Law provides the Register of Copyrights with the authority to fix fees for special services (i.e., services other than basic copyright registrations) on the basis of the cost of providing the service. The Copyright Office calculates hourly rates for these fees assuming 2,087 direct labor hours per employee. A multiplier of 73.29 percent is added to this hourly rate to account for other direct and indirect costs. 7. Outsourcing could significantly affect the Library's operating costs, unit cost of services, potential revenue, and also, mission. Alternative methods of production, such as outsourcing, are possible if they are found to be in keeping with the Library's mission. While we did not evaluate the cost savings that could be realized through outsourcing, we did consider which of the four services we studied warrant an outsourcing analysis. We believe charging publishers for cataloging and certain work related to the copyright registration process provide the greatest potential for outsourcing. The Loan Division does not really lend itself to alternative methods of production, because processing loan requests requires admittance to the stacks. With respect to commercial research, various units at the Library have essentially outsourced all but a minimum level of research for commercial and other users. Numerous divisions perform only a prescribed minimum of research before providing requesters with a list of outside researchers who can continue a search for a fee. Cataloging could be accomplished through possible outsourcing or cooperative agreements, subject to the interpretation of the Library's mission: In 1993, OCLC proposed to perform cataloging for the Library at an estimated price of $36 per book The Library does have one cooperative cataloging agreement with the National Institutes of Health for cataloging medical material The Library has not pursued additional cooperative agreements because Library senior management is concerned about maintaining standards and quality in a dispersed cataloging operation The Library senior management considers cataloging a core service of the Library and one that should not be outsourced to firms like OCLC if the Library is to maintain the level of quality and completeness in its catalogs. Parts of the copyright registration process are also candidates for outsourcing, for example, examining and cataloging. The determination of potential activities for outsourcing should be based on the need for knowledge of copyright law, the complexity of the process and the associated learning curve. It appears that the learning curve associated with examining and cataloging is fairly lengthy, indicating a long time before an outside source could handle current claim volumes efficiently. An associated risk of outsourcing might therefore be an increase in arrearages or a reduction in quality. Alternatively, the Copyright Office could outsource the Licensing and Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP) divisions, which do not get directly involved with the copyright registration process. The Licensing division administers compulsory and statutory licenses for retransmitting television and radio broadcasts. The CARP division makes determinations concerning reasonable terms and rates of royalty payments. However, given that both of these divisions currently offset their entire appropriations with fees, the benefit of outsourcing is primarily administrative. The greatest potential for outsourcing in Copyright comes from areas where a working knowledge of copyright law is not required and where policies and practices are not frequently changed. A number of activities in the Copyright Office's Receiving and Processing division and some functions in the Information and Reference division represent candidates for outsourcing. Combined, these two divisions' FY 1995 appropriations for compensation and benefits approximated $7.2 million. 8. To date, Congress has provided the Library with limited legislative authority to expand fee-based services. 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 only be modified 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. Charging publishers for cataloging and charging libraries for loans would require legislative action to relieve the Library from restrictions. Whereas the Library does not currently have the authority to charge commercial researchers fees for services, large research projects could be accommodated through the Publications office. The Publications Office has a revolving fund, which permits the Publications Office to establish projects for fees or for shared revenue with outside publishers and researchers. The fact that five different pieces of legislation have been drafted and/or introduced in each of the last 5 years, without any of them having been enacted, however, demonstrates the difficulty and complexity of introducing additional fee-based services. Exhibit 2-34, below, provides a summary of legislation drafted or introduced over the last 5 years. EXHIBIT 2-34 Summary of Legislation Library of Congress Fund Act (S.1416) 1991 Library of Congress Fund Act (S.2748) 1992 Library of Congress Fund Act (S.345) 1993 Library of Congress Financial Reform Act (H.R.4736) 1994 Library of Congress Financial Management Act (Not yet introduced) 1995 General % Provides for fee-based library research and information products and services that are outside the scope of the Library's core services % States core Library services as organizing, cataloging, preserving collections; reference; domestic interlibrary loan % States core services are to be provided at no cost % Provides administrative mechanisms for fee-based services % Defines three types of services: - Core Library Products & Services: domestic interlibrary loan, information products & services customarily provided by libraries to users at no charge - National Library Products & Services: products & services used by libraries, play role in library services - Specialized Library Products & Services: customized information, products, and services that exceed core services, are not national, and are designed for individuals or discrete groups % Maintains three categories of products/ services: - Core - National - Specialized Specifies fee-based, or fund, activities as the following: % Research reports for Federal agencies % Central acquisition for Federal agencies % Decimal classification development % Gift shop % Document copying services and international lending % Central acquisition for overseas programs % Special events and programs Specifies fee-based, or fund, activities as: % Research reports for Federal agencies % International lending % Central acquisition for Federal agencies % Decimal classification development % Gift shop % Document copying services and international lending % Central acquisition for overseas programs % Special events and programs Library of Congress Fund Act (S.1416) 1991 Library of Congress Fund Act (S.2748) 1992 Library of Congress Fund Act (S.345) 1993 Library of Congress Financial Reform Act (H.R.4736) 1994 Library of Congress Financial Management Act (Not yet introduced) 1995 Cataloging % Considers cataloging as a core service, which continues to be provided at no cost % Library no longer recovers cost plus 10%, but rather recovers distribution costs only when furnishing products and services % Considers cataloging as a core service, which continues to be provided at no cost % Library no longer recovers cost plus 10%, but rather recovers distribution costs only when furnishing products and services % Considers cataloging as a core service, which continues to be provided at no cost % Library no longer recovers cost plus 10%, but rather recovers distribution costs only when furnishing products and services % Does not consider cataloging a fee-based, or fund activity; continues to provide cataloging at no cost % Library no longer recovers cost plus 10%, but rather recovers distribution costs only when furnishing products and services % Does not consider cataloging a fee-based or fund activity; continues to provide cataloging at no cost % Library no longer recovers cost plus 10%, but rather recovers distribution costs only when furnishing products and services Research % States only reference services as core, not research % States customized research reports & analytical studies are fee-based % Establishes revolving fund % Specifies research reports & analytical studies as specialized products and as a fee-based service % Establishes revolving fund % Authorizes fees for production & distribution of specialized products % Establishes revolving fund % Allows charging of fees for research only to Federal agencies % Establishes revolving fund % Allows charging of fees for research only to Federal agencies % Establishes revolving fund Interlibrary Loans Defines domestic interlibrary loans as core service, continued to be provided at no cost Defines domestic interlibrary loans as core service, continued to be provided at no cost Defines domestic interlibrary loans as core service, continued to be provided at no cost Domestic interlibrary lending is not a fee-based service and continues to be provided at no cost Domestic interlibrary lending is not a fee-based service and continues to be provided at no cost The initial impetus for the cited legislation was to provide the Library with statutory authority and financial mechanisms (example, revolving funds) to support activities in which it was already involved. The initial legislation proposed by the Library-the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1991 (S.1416)) and Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992 (S.2748)-included fee-based products and services, however, as well as providing for the financial mechanisms. The expansion of fee-based services drew strong concerns from Library stakeholders, and as a result the legislation was revised to accommodate their concerns. The proposed Library of Congress Financial Reform Act of 1994 and Library of Congress Financial Management Act of 1995 authorized specific fund service activities that could take advantage of a revolving fund's cost recovery mechanisms. For both pieces of legislation, the list of Fund service activities is the same. The activities included in the proposed legislation are all ones that the Library is currently performing under other authorities; no new fee-based or fund activities are authorized under this proposed legislation. Stakeholders responded strongly to the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992 (S. 2748), which led to the revision of fee-based services in the 1993, 1994, and 1995 proposals. Exhibit 2-35 summarizes the written testimony provided at the hearings on the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992 (S. 2748). EXHIBIT 2-35 Testimony on the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992 (S. 2748) Information Industry Associates (IIA) American Library Association (ALA) Association of American Publishers (AAP) General Comments % Puts the Library in competition with the private sector % May diminish intellectual property rights % Establishes information policies for the Library that are inconsistent with general government information policies % May shift the Library's focus from non-fee-based services to fee-based services % Changes mission of the Library from focus on Congress % Ensure that fees do from a barrier to access and service % Maintain core services of the library as free % Charge marginal distribution costs only for national services % Takes away from the Library's overarching traditional mission as the library to Congress % Allows the Library to compete unfairly; the Library should not be in competition with the private sector % Library should focus on problems identified by GAO, rather than on expanding its mission Cataloging Fees % Gov't information principle: no one should pay more than a marginal fee for dissemination. % Gov't information should be funded through appropriations; agencies should not sell information to fund Government activities. % Library might seek copyright protection and licensing fees on materials it produces. % National library products/services should be provided at no more than distribution cost. % Concern about the range of cost categories is included in the definition of distribution costs. % Define core services of the Library as organizing, cataloging, and preserving its collections. Research Fees % Focus could shift to fee-based services at expense of non-fee-based services. % ALA is concerned about how core services will be differentiated from customized services. % Private sector organizations provide these services; proposed legislation allows the Library, a taxpayer-subsidized entity, to engage in commercial activity. % Broad categorization would permit the Library to do just about anything. Interlibrary Lending Fees % No direct comments % Consider Library of Congress as the library of last resort for free domestic interlibrary loans % No direct comments As further evidence of the divergent opinions around charging fees for services, stakeholders' responses from the Mission focus group demonstrate that the views on these three areas of potential fee-based services diverge greatly. Exhibit 2-36 gives a summary of the Mission focus group responses for Congressional staff and Library Executives. EXHIBIT 2-36 Mission Focus Group Results Issue/Respondents Strongly Disagree/Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree/Agree Charging publishers a fee for cataloging Congressional Staff 1 5 Library Executives 4 Charging commercial researchers a fee Congressional Staff 1 5 Library Executives 4 1* Charging for interlibrary loans Congressional Staff 5 1 Library Executives 4 *One respondent in the Library Executive focus group checked "Disagree" for core research and "Agree" for customized research. Congressional staff and Library executives in the focus groups have opposite views on each of the three proposed fee-based services. Congressional staff responses indicated that charging fees to publishers for cataloging or to commercial researchers should be pursued, whereas Library executives indicated these should not be pursued. On the other hand, Library executives indicate that interlibrary lending should be a fee-based service, which is contrary to both the Congressional staff's view and to the treatment of interlibrary lending in the proposed bills since 1992. The determination and implementation of potential fee-based services will require significant work among the Library staff, Congress, and other stakeholders and interested parties, because no clear consensus on potential new fee-based products and services for the Library exists. Vocal stakeholders, such as IIA, ALA, and AAP, have been in favor of the Library's not expanding its fee-based services beyond what it offers today, namely, catalog distribution and photoduplication. 2.5.4 Recommendations 1. Pursue Full Recovery of Copyright Costs 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-on the order of approximately $11 to $17 million annually. As the Copyright Office has been subject to full cost recovery in the past, a precedent has been set for the Library. This precedent could be an argument to pursue full cost recovery. In order for the Library to recover full costs successfully, though, it will need to refine its cost data and cost assumptions for the Copyright Office. Additional analysis done to understand more fully the cost drivers and the associated assumptions on how to allocate costs more completely will give the Library better information to determine what the fee levels should be and will help make a stronger argument for obtaining the legislative relief needed for full cost recovery. Because the Copyright Office does not fully recover costs, and has not fully recovered costs since the 1940s, the Library will need to develop a legislative strategy and seek Congressional approval for full recovery of copyright registration costs. In addition, if the Copyright Office is to maintain full cost recovery, it needs to establish the capability and mechanisms to handle fee changes and, possibly, multiple fees. In recovering full costs, we recommend that the Copyright Office also establish a differentiated fee structure that better matches the fee to the processing cost. In order for the Copyright Office to implement this approach successfully, it must be able to update, maintain, and communicate a more complex fee schedule that will change more frequently. The introduction of the online Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit System (CORDS) in the near future should facilitate fee changes through the use of electronic data interchange and electronic commerce for fee recovery. Coupling the changes in fees with the implementation of CORDS should simplify the change and reduce concerns about a fee structure that changes fairly frequently. The Copyright Office therefore 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. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan to explore in detail the potential revenue from charging publishers a fee for cataloging. We have estimated that the potential revenue to the Library from charging publishers a fee for cataloging represents a significant amount of money-on the order of $7,500,000 annually-as shown in the detailed analysis above. 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. We believe that the Library should carefully construct and execute a plan that specifies how it will realize the potential revenue and how it will address stakeholders' interests and concerns. We recommend that the plan for charging for cataloging incorporate the following elements: A thorough assessment of the corollary relationships between publishers and the Library-the Library's relationship with publishers and the publishing community exists on many levels, such as receiving new publications into the collections and cooperative agreements, and the Library needs to examine whether charging publishers fees for cataloging would significantly damage other important relationships. The plan therefore should address the range of these relationships and identify steps to mitigate the concern or risk. Addressing the concerns of other stakeholders-the Library has many other stakeholders, such as Congress, libraries, and associations, that may be concerned about how charging a fee for cataloging will affect the Library's cataloging and collections. The Library should bring these stakeholders into the discussion and design of the proposed approach to fees for cataloging. The Library should plan out the steps required to ensure the continued high quality of both cataloging and the collections and to reduce or mitigate the stakeholders' concerns. Development of a method for setting the fee structure-in charging publishers a fee for cataloging, the Library will have to determine the basis for the fee-whether to base the fee on full cost recovery or to use something less than full cost recovery. The Library must address how to handle the value of items deposited with it for cataloging, and whether or not this value plays a role in determining the level of the fees. The Library needs to evaluate the price elasticity of demand with respect to cataloging to determine the appropriate level at which to set price and maximize potential revenue. Similarly, the Library will have to assess if publishers' alternatives for cataloging information are acceptable to the wider community. If so, the effect on demand for Library cataloging services will clearly have bearing on the level of fees the Library can ultimately charge. It will also have to determine if charging a fee for cataloging will reduce the number of items submitted for cataloging, which would reduce both the inflow to the collections and the potential revenue. 3. Develop a strategy and approach for qualifying potential fee-based services. The analysis of the four service areas studied makes clear that some possible fee-based services offer substantially greater potential revenue than others. In order to deploy its efforts most effectively and maximize revenue potential, the Library should develop an analytical approach that allows it to determine both the level of potential revenue and the possible issues related to pursuing the fee-based service, including stakeholder and legislative issues. Exhibit 2-37 shows the conceptual approach we have developed for the Library to use in qualifying opportunities. Exhibit 2-37 Proposed Approach for Qualifying Opportunities This approach mirrors the analytical approach we used for this study. It takes into account not only the financial data, but also the environment for the potential fee-based services. Key elements of the approach include the following: Understand cost drivers-Defines how the service is provided and what resources are involved in providing it. This information, which can be gathered through focused interviews and volume statistics, provides the basis for assumptions on allocating the costs of the service. Allocate budget data-Breaks down budget data, including overhead, according to the assumptions determined in the previous step. This is the first step toward the allocation of total costs to the service under study. Calculate unit cost and total revenue-Determines the cost per service to each customer. The unit cost provides important input as to how the service may be perceived by potential customers. Analyze customer and stakeholder responses and legislative issues- Provides the context in which the fee-based service would be implemented. This analysis can be accomplished through selected interviews and through comparisons with similar services and the reactions to those services in the past. Realizing additional revenue potential requires that the Library have the authority and support to implement the fees. The stakeholder and legislative analyses are key to determining what it may take for the Library to get such authority and support. Develop recommendation to pursue or not-Provides context for moving forward. Based on the quantitative and qualitative data, the Library can determine whether or not an opportunity really offers revenue potential. The quantitative data will demonstrate whether or not the potential revenue is at a level that is worth pursuing; the qualitative data will help the Library make the decision on whether implementing the fee-based service is in its best interest. Develop strategy for implementation-Creates a comprehensive approach for implementing qualified opportunities. The analytical steps outlined above will help ensure that the Library will pursue only services that offer real potential. Using the preliminary analysis as a starting point, the Library should then establish a plan for ensuring that the opportunity becomes a reality. The application of the analytical approach will assist the Library in qualifying opportunities based on a realistic assessment of their potential, both financial and strategic. Through the assessment, the Library can determine the high-priority, high-probability services to pursue for fee authority. In order to fully realize the revenue potential from the Library's services, the Library needs to move along two tracks. First, Library management should charge each service unit with identifying potential fee -based services and off-sets to appropriated funds. Second, the Library should develop specific plans and assign responsibility for developing the fees and fee authority. 4. Develop legislative strategy to provide the Library with the financial mechanisms and authority needed to implement fee-based services. One of the most critical elements needed for the Library's implementation and management of fee-based services is the appropriate financial structure. Fee-based services, in order to run effectively, require a different financial structure from that presented in the annual budget and appropriation process, which restricts planning and performance to the single fiscal year horizon. Fee-based services demand mechanisms that allow the organization to provide services across budget and appropriation years. To date, Congress has not provided the Library with legislation authorizing all the different financial mechanisms needed to pursue a range of fee-based service opportunities. The Library should develop a legislative strategy that takes into account potential stakeholder reactions and objections to the fee-based services and determines how it will deal with these objections in negotiating the needed legislation. 1 John Y. Cole, Jefferson's Legacy, A Brief History of the Library of Congress, 1993, p. 12. 2 Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, September 12, 1814, quoted in Cole, op. cit., p. 13. 3 Cole, op. cit. 4 Ibid., and Library of Congress budget documents. 5 Library of Congress Mission and Strategic Priorities, October 1995 (Appendix A). 6 Cole, op. cit., p. 18. 7 Statement before Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, July 22, 1992. 8 Cole, op. cit. 9 Library of Congress: Comparison of Appropriations, Staff, and Workload Statistics, December 1995. 10 These are the resources required for central Library function; resources for distributed sites depend on number/role of sites and their offsetting savings. 11 In 1994, the management team consisted of 19 individuals representing major organizations within the Library. The size and composition of this group have fluctuated over time as responsibilities and organizational structure have evolved. 12 The Gazette is a weekly publication of the Library's Communications Office that is distributed to Library employees. 13 Director ITS memorandum dated December 23, 1994, "Retreat Next Steps" on page 14 of consolidated report "Library of Congress Management Retreat, November 5-7, 1994. 14Library of Congress Regulation (LCR) 2017-2.1 establishes the principles, guidelines, and procedures for performance planning and appraisal for senior-level executives. The intent of the appraisal system for Senior Executives is to do the following: 7 Appraise managers' contribution to the Library's mission, goals, and objectives 7 Enhance individual motivation and encourage excellence 7 Increase managerial and organizational accountability 7 Provide the basis for performance-related pay adjustment. 15 The mission of the former planning and development office, a small group reporting directly to the Librarian, was as follows: The Office [of Planning and Development, Office of the Librarian] is concerned with long-range planning and program development and is appraising major ongoing programs and their management. It works with Library management staff in formulating policy statements which serve as a basis for shaping the Library's organization and services. The functions and organization of Management Services, abolished in 1993, focused primarily on support services, including automated systems, buildings management, financial management, personnel and labor relations, photoduplication services, property and supply management, records management and transportation, printing, and communication services. Its functions statement also mentions "participation in formulating and conducting programs for improving the management and organization of the Library of Congress," which could be construed to replace the planning, program development, and evaluation role, but this is not explicit, nor is it mentioned in descriptions of the functioning of that office. 16 LCR 211-1, Organization of the Office of the Librarian of Congress, November 30, 1989. 17 A Presidential Memorandum dated Oct. 1, 1993 summarizes the role of the COO in Executive Branch agencies. 18 Appendix E contains more detailed flows for each activity in the process and illustrates that, indeed, the Collections Management Process crosses numerous organizational units, for example, Acquisition, Copyright, Order Division, Overseas Operations, Exchange and Gifts, Cataloging, and Preservation. 19 The Cataloging Directorate STARS data do include detailed processing times by cataloging team. 20 A typical library truck is about 3.5 feet long and 1.5 feet wide, has three shelves, and large wheels. Each truck can carry about 250 books. 21 Please refer to the Analysis on Inputs and Management of Photographs and Monographic Materials appendices. 22 The +4 digits represent the mail code within the Library. 23 Upon taking an inquiry, the staff in the Inquiry Section of CRS discuss the details with the requester to determine the type and format of response needed, the urgency and response time needed, and among other things, clarification of the subject matter and the request. CRS refers to this as "negotiating the request." 24 A fanfold is a six-part form, printed off special printers in the Divisions, that is used to track the progress of an inquiry. 25 CRS provides research responses for both general distribution and confidential responses. 26 The homepage is not accessible to the general public. 27 Refer to the CRS Monthly Report for a complete listing of measures. 28 Some searching for topics can be done in ISIS and ISIS 96 by performing a text search, but this capability is very limited and unreliable as it is dependent on the handwritten notes and buffs entered into ISIS after a request is addressed. 29 Actual working time. 30 Report of the Register of Copyrights, 1995. The 855,022 includes 552,113 registered and 302,909 non-registration items. The Library registered roughly 600,000 works in 1995, which translates into approximately 900,000 items since two copies of published items are generally received. Thus the registered items transferred correspond to fewer than 552,113 titles, since published works are received and transferred in duplicate. 31 The Education and Public Welfare Division recently found that materials collected through Exchange and Gifts from state governments will be of value as CRS performs more work on the devolution of responsibilities from Federal to state governments. 32 The October 1994 study comparing Public Policy Literature File (PPLT) and commercial databases found a success rate of only 42 percent when locating serials in the Library of Congress. Recent discussions between CRS and Collections have yielded a better understanding of CRS's timely needs for serials and have improved CRS's access to the Library serials. 33 The analysis of potential revenue specifically excludes Acquisitions, Licensing, and the Copyright Arbitration Panels (CARP), but includes all other aspects of Copyright. While some Copyright activities may perhaps be excluded from cost recovery, we were unable to refine the estimates to exclude these activities due to the limitations in the data available. The potential revenue from full cost recovery, therefore, could be somewhat smaller than the figures cited here. 34 This figure excludes fee receipts for Special Handling and Expedited Services and reflects only fee receipts from registrations. 35 This range in potential revenue under full-cost recovery is predicated on comparing actual FY 1995 fee receipts to the full cost of the copyright registration process. In order to highlight the difference between current receipts and full cost recovery, the analysis does not take into account possible changes stemming from a fee increase, such as the potential drop in the number of registrations. 36 This analysis excludes the revenue that could be generated through international loans. The Library announced it would resume international lending for a fee in February 1996. 37 One of our sensitivity analyses is based on the Copyright Office's relocating off-site. The off-site cost analysis does not suggest that the Copyright Office should become a separate government agency. Rather, it is intended to explore only the effect of an off-site location on costs and potential fees. 38 This figure is based on a Working Draft of a report entitled "Acquisition of Material for the Collections of the Library of Congress," dated February 28, 1996 for the period 1993 through 1995. This report was written by the Senior Advisor to the Librarian of Congress and concludes that "Ithe entire valuation process needs systematic study and attention." 39 The Working Draft of the report "Acquisition of Material for the Collections of the Library of Congress" states, "Copyright Office reports that it turns over an average of 816,000 items a year, with an average dollar values of $17.1 million [1993-1995]. However, a review of these figures clearly indicates that the quantity is too high, and the unit pricing method is not reliableI" 8 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. 41 The high unit cost range for Supplementary Information and Mask Works results from the proportionally high number of personnel in the Cataloging Division who are dedicated to cataloging these proportionally small number of registrations. BoozaAllen & Hamilton 75 2- BoozaAllen & Hamilton 2-90 BoozaAllen & Hamilton 2-116