This paper attempts to document the approach taken by one of the 24 Federal agencies that participated in the survey "Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products," prepared by Westat, Inc., a survey research contractor based in Rockville, Maryland, dated May 30, 1999, for the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and commissioned by the Government Printing Office (GPO). Readers unfamiliar with the background and purpose of the survey are referred to the print and electronic citations in the appendix.
It is hoped that all Federal agencies, even those which did not participate in the survey, might profit from this document by taking steps now to deal with weaknesses they note when they "match" the report's findings with their own plans, policies and practices, without necessarily awaiting the Government as a whole to address the various findings made in the report (just as EPA has done). There are some findings that probably should await government-wide action because there is the danger agencies might act prematurely and put in place remedies that may later be "contradicted" by government-wide approaches. However, EPA's experience is that there are even more weaknesses that can be dealt with because the problem is obvious to everybody concerned, and in many cases actions have already been initiated to deal with the problem.
Finally, NCLIS needs to point out that we do not suggest that EPA's actions are necessarily the "right" or the "best" way to proceed. We offer them here by way of a checklist - - an example of how one agency is moving ahead. Quite clearly each agency must tailor its approach to own unique circumstances, as always.
1. REPORT REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATE AGENCY AUTHORITIES
The first step that can be taken is to refer the report to the appropriate agency authorities, as well as external constituent groups with whom the agency regularly deals in information management contexts such as user groups, information providers, and so on. For example, in the case of EPA, both the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Director of Information Resources Management (IRM) were referred the report - - either the full version which is in print form on in electronic form on GPO Access, or the executive summary which is also in print form and in electronic form on the NCLIS Web site.
For those 24 Federal agencies which participated in the survey, perhaps the Agency Coordinator can make these referrals as was done in the case of EPA. For the remainder of the Federal establishment perhaps the CIO's office or one of the affected functional staff offices most concerned with the report's findings can make the referrals (e.g. the printing and publishing unit, the library, the IT office, the records office, the public affairs office, or some other group).
EPA suggests the referrer say something to the effect that "this report contains very important material that pertains to our agency, and you will see that virtually all Government agencies that participated in the survey are facing the same set of problems we are! In short, we are not unique or alone!"
Additionally, standing internal agency committees or groups within whose sphere of cognizance the subject matter falls (i.e. public information dissemination, migration of ink-on-paper and microforms to electronic formats and mediums, and electronic publishing policies and practices) could place the report on its agenda and begin systematically addressing the findings. For example, EPA has some 800 agency Internet data providers and the agency convenes a meeting annual to which these providers are invited. The agency might ask itself and such participants:
2. WHAT ARE THE ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REPORT'S FINDINGS?
In EPA, for example, the ink-on-paper print publication managers and the electronic publishing managers are two different organizational groups. However, the review process for both conventional print publishing and electronic publishing have many commonalties. But what of the report's first two major findings which address the overarching question of the need for a single, central focal point to coordinate public information dissemination? And the corollary (second) finding that authorities and responsibilities for public information dissemination and electronic publishing are decentralized, diffuse and unclear?
As it happened, EPA was already planning a new IRM internal reorganization in part because some of the problems identified in the report had already been recognized, some for quite a long time. EPA is creating an "Office of Information" which will centralize responsibility for coordinating policy planning, management, and certain other authorities and responsibilities in one official. EPA does not yet know how the CIO and Director of IRM will sort out their respective responsibilities in this regard, but work is well underway.
EPA is quick to point out, however, that web site management and control will remain decentralized. The agency's philosophy in this regard is that a certain recentralization of central coordination is a key to continued empowerment of web site management under operating line and staff control. Thus, air and water systems, networks, databases and web site management will remain with air and water; solid waste with solid waste; and so forth.
3. UNDERTAKING A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLETED PRODUCT SURVEY RESULTS
One of the most useful things EPA is doing is to place the completed survey forms side-by-side and compare the answers prepared by the product respondents across product lines for the same question. Why, for example, EPA asks itself, "did product A have a more meaningful, useful, and better response that did products B, C, and D? Can we learn any lessons here that would allow us to tighten our policies, procedures and practices? What accounts for the difference in quality of responses?"
4. UTILIZING WEB SITES AND WEB MEDIUMS AS INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS
The report makes a number of findings which touch upon the fact that you cannot digest the same information on the Web as you can from a print publication, and fact drives certain policy, program, and practice "facts of life." For example, you can write more in print publications that you can in electronic publications. That obviously mitigates against a mindless policy of converting everything from print to digital form. There is a suitability determination that must be an integral part of the agency publishing policies and procedures so that the alternative mediums and formats are considered systematically at an early point in the review and approval processes.
5. DISADVANTAGES EXPERIENCED BY DISABLED PERSONS IN TRYING TO ACCESS GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Key Finding #5 of the report says:
"There is a lack of planning for or consideration of web design approaches that comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)."
EPA points out that every Federal agency must respond to the Department of Justice with a self-evaluation as to how they are complying with the ADA. In EPA's case, the Office of Civil Rights is the focal point for preparing the agency's response. EPA suggests that one individual be designated to review the report from the vantage point of the ADA's provisions, asking the question "now, if I were a disabled or disadvantaged person trying to access my agency's public information, would this finding impact my abilities to do so positively or negatively. And, if negatively, how so, and what can we do about it to improve the situation?"
6. MIGRATING PRODUCTS FROM PRINT MEDIUMS TO ELECTRONIC MEDIUMS, AND VICE-VERSA
EPA points out that while the lion's share of attention is being given to migrating products from print and microform to electronic formats and/or mediums, still there is a need for the reverse migration. That is, to migrate the entire, or some components of an electronic medium "back" to a print or microform (or perhaps CD-ROM) format and/or medium. Some of the report's findings touch upon this issue.
7. MANAGING DATABASES FOR ACCESS
It is one thing to manage a specific product for access. It is quite another to manage an entire database for access. Policies, procedures and practices should take this distinction carefully into account. For example, EPA's telephone book is the only single, central, authoritative focal point where the organization's structure is (reasonably) kept current. The agency wants to make the underlying database more user friendly by adding e-mail addresses, fax numbers, and other information, and making it more searchable.
8. HOW ARE AGENCY INTERNAL STANDARDS ESTABLISHED, REVIEWED, AND KEPT CURRENT?
The report contains a great deal of information that addresses the question of which standard(s), if any, are being utilized for which products, using what kind of formats and what kind of mediums. In most cases standards are agency common practice rather than mandated by "higher authority." But EPA is using the report to systematically ask itself "what standards do we need agency-wide" and "when should we begin the standards research, pilot testing, application, and utilization processes (in short, what should the timetable be)?" Also, how does the agency ensure compliance with established standards?