S. Department

Commerce

tional Bureau

Standards

Computer Science

and Technology

NBS Special Publication 500-72

Guidance on

Requirements Analysis for

Office Automation Systems

'500-72

0

,7
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act ot Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities' — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering- — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology- — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg. MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. -Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
Computer Science

and Technology

NBS Special Publication 500-72

Guidance on

Requirements Analysis for

Office Automation Systems

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary
Reports on Computer Science and Technology

The National Bureau of Standards has a special responsibility within the Federal

Government for computer science and technology activities. The programs of the

NBS Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology are designed to provide ADP

standards, guidelines, and technical advisory services to improve the effectiveness

of computer unitilization in the Federal sector, and to perform appropriate research

and development efforts as foundation for such activities and programs. This

publication series will report these NBS efforts to the Federal computer community as

well as to interested specialists in the academic and private sectors. Those wishing to receive notices of publications in this series should complete and return the form at the end of this publication.

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 500-72

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 500-72, 127 pages (Dec. 1980)

CODEN: XNBSAV

Library of Congress Catalog Card Nunnber:80-6001 79

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1980

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Price $4.75

(Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
Foreword By the National Bureau of Standards

Protocol, interface and formatting standards are being produced by the National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) for global, national and international networks, for local area data

networks, and to support computer based office systems applications. Guidelines on the use and selection of supporting technologies are also being produced by this

NBS networking program. The objective of this program is to facilitate the interconnection and integration of computer systems and devices through networking technology

to support distributed processing.

This report is one of a series of reports being prepared under the computer based

office systems segment of the networking program for distribution to Government

agencies, manufacturers, and other interested parties. This report is being issued

in the NBS Special Publication series prior to its final issuance as a guideline in the

Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) series. We encourage testing of

the methodology described herein and we urge readers to provide comments and to further interact with us on this report. Written comments should address both the

advantages and disadvantages (from the reader's viewpoint) of individual features

described in this report. Responses should be directed to the address below, and NOT

to the NBS contractor that prepared the report.

Reply to:

National Bureau of Standards (Code CBOS)

Systems and Network Architecture Division

Technology Building, Room B218

Washington, DC 2023^

* Contained within this report are sample questionnaires used to obtain research

data for this report.
Office automation systems can be broadly defined as those that transform ideas

into written communications via the interaction of people, procedures, and

equipment. In recent years, numerous studies, reports, and articles have

proposed that the use of such systems will contribute to the efficient preparation and distribution of general office communications and work products.

However, the Federal experience with office automation has been primarily

limited, thus far, to the implementation of word processing equipment and

documented evidence of the benefits received from these installations have

not been produced.

This guideline presents a methodology for determining the feasibility and

practicality of introducing (or expanding) office automation systems within

the Federal Government. It is applicable to all office automation technologies

such as word processors, dictation equipment, and telecommunications and is

designed for use by agency officials and other employees who have the responsibility for productivity improvement, procedural analysis data processing, or office systems.

Key words: Computer based office systems; office automation; requirements

analysis.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

1. Office Automation and the Federal 5

Government

1.1. Technologies and Benefits 6

1.2. Justifying Office Automation 6

2. Determining Baseline Office Productivity 10

2.1. Introduction 10

2.2. Preliminary Study Activities 12

2.2.1. Study Team Structuring/Planning 12

2.2.2. Organizational Notification of 13

the Study

2.2.3. Initial Office Research 14

2.2.4. Senior Management Interviews 14

2.2.5. Study Tools Development 15

2.3. Key Product Analysis 20

2.3.1. Pre-Interview Considerations 20

2.3.2. Interviews With Key Product 21

Contributors

2.3.3. Uses of Key Product Analysis 22

Data

2.4. Office Work Analysis 27

2.4.1. Data Collection Activities 28

2.4.2. Follow-up Interviews 29

2.4.3. Uses of Office Work Analysis 30

Data

2.5. Summary 31

V
Page

3. Designing the Office Automation System 33

3.1. Introduction 33

3.2. Determining the System Requirements 33

3.3. Creation of a System Design Model 35

3.4. Summary 40

4. Developing Functional Specifications for 41

the Office Automation System

4.1. Introduction 41

4.2. Developing Functional Specifications 41

4.3. Examination of Functional Feasibility 43

4.4. Preparation of a Representative 43

Conf igurat ion

4.5 Summary 44

5. Assessing the Cost Justification for 46

Implementing the Office Automation System

5.1. Introduction 46

5.2. Elements of System Cost 47

5.3. Elements of System Benefit 47

5.4. Assessment of Cost/Benefit 48

5.5. Judging the Cost/Benefit Analysis 50

Results

5.6. Summary 51

6. Conducting Post-Implementation Audits of the 54

Office Automation System

6.1. Introduction 54

6.2. Timing of Post-Implementation Audits 55

6.3. Office Automation Audit Activities 56

6.4. Summary 59

7. Summary Advice 61

vi
Page

APPENDICES

A. Typical List of Products A-1

B. Baseline Data Collection Terms B-1

C. Key Product Analysis C-1

Key Product Interview Worksheet C-1

Key Product Interview Guide C-2

D. Office Work Analysis D-1

Professional Questionnaire D-1

Administrative Support Questionnaire D-12

E. Technology Assessment E-1

Descriptions of Product Preparation E-1

Phases and Representative Equipment

Types

Productivity Citings for E-5

Representative Equipment

Types

Bibliography of Sources of Office E-14

Automation Information

vii
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

1. The Study Methodology 3

2. Preliminary Key Product Flow Diagram 16

3. Detailed Key Product Flow Diagram 23

4. Annual Levels of Effort to Prepare

Key Products 24

5. Annual Personnel Costs to Prepare

Key Products 26

6. System Design Model 37

7. Functional Specifications 42

8. Cost/Benefit Projections Matrix 49

V i 1 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, organizations have been turning

towards the use of automated equipment to effect productivity

improvements in the office environment. The Federal experience with such equipment, however, has often been characterized

by an inability to produce documented evidence of the actual

benefits received from these procurements. With the ever

increasing investment of agency funds for new and different

types of office automation equipment, the need for thorough

requirements analyses and procurement justifications has reached

new importance. This guideline has been developed to assist

agencies in fulfilling that need. It provides a detailed

study methodology for determining the feasibility and practicality of implementing office automation systems as well

as a means for evaluating implementation results.

The guideline is applicable to all types of office automation technologies such as word processors, dictation equipment, and telecommunications. It is designed for voluntary

use by agency managers and other employees who have responsibility for productivity improvement, procedural analysis, data

processing, or office systems.

Previous studies aimed towards analyses of office automation need and justification primarily focused on the singular

use of word processing to directly aid the clerical and secretarial staffs. When viewed in perspective, though, it becomes

evident that in many cases the major benefits of office automation will be realized only when additional steps are taken

to directly provide automated tools to the professional staff.

Thus, studies of office automation must go beyond word processing and the traditional emphasis on clerical support. They

must, in fact, concern themselves with the impact of a wide

range of professional oriented technologies (e.g. personal

information retrieval, speech mail, videoconferencing) that can

affect all areas of office work from the input of ideas through

the distribution of communications. Additionally, they must

recognize the need to consider organizational and procedural

factors as collateral means for increasing staff productivity.

This guideline addresses these issues by employing a method of analysis that reveals productivity data relating

directly to the workload of both the professional and support

staffs. The output of this work is defined and used as the

basis for identifying productivity improvement opportunities.

This result is achieved by collecting cost and time data that

are allocated to the preparation of an organization's products.

1
A "product" is defined as a unit of regularly produced

output, either in written form or as a service contributed

to by one or more individuals and requiring significant

amounts of time and cost. Because an organization's products tend to evolve slowly over time and represent a common language to employees, it is advantageous for products

to become the focus of the study effort. By examining data

on a product basis, it becomes feasible to identify a set of

organizational, procedural, and technological productivity

improvements, and note the quantitative effect of these

improvements on product preparation efforts.

In its broadest sense, the study methodology presented

herein entails the collection of data from professional and

support staffs through interviews, questionnaires and

observations. Exhibit 1, graphically illustrates this

methodology and references the appropriate section of

the guideline for further discussion. An overview of

the major points contained in each chapter is presented

below:

Determining Baseline Office Productivity -- A

study team is created and examines the existing

efforts and costs required for key product preparation through the generic phases of input,

production, output, and distribution. Simultaneous to this effort, an office work analysis

is performed focusing on the total range of

daily activities performed by office personnel.

The data from both collection efforts are analyzed

and used to create a "baseline" profile of existing office productivity.

Designing the Office Automation System — Using the

baseline results, the study team develops system

requirements to achieve a set of productivity

improvement goals. These requirements become the

basis for developing a macro level "system design

model" that incorporates organizational, procedural, and technological modifications to improve

baseline key product preparation efforts. The

expected productivity improvement impacts of each

modification are then quantified.

Developing Functional Specifications for the Office

Automation System -- The study team further defines

the technological components of the system design

model by preparing functional specifications for

each equipment type identified therein. Once these

specifications are prepared, a representative

equipment configuration is constructed including

its estimated cost.

2
E

O)

4-» I— >,-o

t/0 o

s:

<D cn--^

+j -r- ro

fa (/I •

s_

Q

—

(-> C

OJ 0) ^E CM

+-> <V • S- ro

QJ

c: cr E CU

S- or

OJ -M

Oi Q

7^

O)

4- • • O +-> CM CM 5 Q. 3 O

+-> "O </) 3 (/) <U O -r- cu c S_ to CD 00

s_ Q. >,

O >,

ITS Q. OJ >, fO (O

OJ 00 O)

C 4-

C

s. fO 1^ < o

Q. CQ

>>

-o *

4-) CM

to • CM E

S- S_ o fO 01 M- c OJ

S- •r- +J

<u E •-- Q- •r- >

0) •(-> s- o

O. cC

O

C .—~ E c>vj O) CO

in 0) . CQ . !-> +-> LO -l-> LT) >> 00 ^

c E — <+- o (U OJ E 00 +-> E +-> +J

+-> cu <u to -1— c 4- O >>4-

O) LlJ o o LU <y> Qj

13

+-> e

c: o

<D +-> !-

00 c +J

cu cu

S- E

CL CL :3 O) •<- C7i . d; :3 -I- «;t 0-4-

UJ co

cu o

S-cx

cu

s_o >,

•r- +J c •>- oo

Ll. -I- <^

to

CU CO

13 to C C o o

+-> +->

<_) fO C O CM

:3 •>- • U_ <4-

Q. o o cu •— Q.

<u c/1 >

<u Q

io s o cu ro

•r— • +-> +J to

n3 ^—'

+-> CM > • •!— cu ID -(-> E O

cu

+-> 1— to o CL4->

C +-> z: E -r- T3 1—1 "O E T3 1 3 •1- :3 o *-> < 1— <: o 00O • •

Cl- E CO

0) +J

-)-> c

00 OJ >. E

CO <u

Q.E M

to CU 4- +-> u

<U

:3 cu

cu 00 s_ CQ cu cu 4-

+-> in cu 00 to • s_ o •1- Ln o 00 — cu >i

cuCD 13 o o 4-> 3 <: i

ne

cu o

CD

OJ -C

+->

-(-> 4-

oo LO o oo

+-> on

00

I/) 4-

cu CU C_) oo cu 00 cu 00 <: CQ K
Assessing the Cost Justification for the Office

Automation System — The study team prepares cost

projections to reflect two conditions: retaining

the baseline system and implementing the office

automation system. A separate projection is prepared for each alternative that was specified.

These projections are compared to ascertain whether

or not it is practical and justifiable to proceed

with full or partial system implementation.

Conducting Post-Implementation Audits of the Office

Automation System -- The purpose of these audits is

to compare expected vs. actual productivity improvements achieved. To perform the audit, the study

team replicates the key product and office work

analyses performed during the original baseline

study. The audit results indicate the degree of

productivity improvement achieved and identify

potential areas of further enhancements.

Each chapter of the guideline should be thoroughly reviewed before embarking on any activity described herein. Due

to practical considerations of time and cost, agency managers

may find it advisable to limit the scope of the study to

either a few pre-determined key products, a small section within

the total organization, and/or to specific phases of the product preparation process. In no case however, should any of

the major activities described in the methodology be eliminated.

The scoping decision is of critical importance and should be

related to either the estimated size of the office automation

procurement budget or to the realistic availability of staff

resources to perform the study.

There are two other cautions that must be recognized by

agency managers pertaining to the use of this guideline. First,

organizations should approach office automation in a cautious,

organized manner, understanding that not all areas of the office

are susceptible to automated improvements. Second, management

must recognize that the value of office automation improvements

will be realized only if the newly available time of professional

and support staffs are directed towards new or additional activities designed to improve organizational effectiveness. This

is the challenge to organizations that are deciding to introduce office automation or any other types of productivity improvement measures.

4
1. OFFICE AUTOMATION AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The large majority of the Federal work force is comprised of "white-collar" workers in offices. In contrast

to farm and industrial workers whose productivity has grown

due to automation, the productivity of office workers has

remained flat. This has frequently been attributed to an undercapitalization of office workers relative to these other

types of workers, and the application of a variety of computer and communications technologies has been suggested

to automate office functions. In recent years, numerous

studies, reports, and articles have agreed that the use of

such systems will contribute to the efficient preparation

and distribution of general office communications and work

products. However, the Federal experience with office

automation has been primarily limited, thus far, to the

implementation of word processing equipment and documented

evidence of the benefits received from these installations

has apparently yet to be produced. A 1979 GAO Report (FCllSD79-17, April 6, 1979) stated that:

"... most agencies can neither demonstrate that they

have increased their productivity nor that their word

processing systems are, in fact, cost effective."

The report concludes that this resulted because there is no major commitment to conduct thorough feasibility studies,

cost justification analyses, and post-implementation performance audits. While this GAO report dealt only with word

processing, it can be implied that a similar condition exists

with other office automation technologies.

Good management practices dictate that an organization

conduct extensive advance planning prior to the introduction

of office automation equipment. Although there are few existing Federal regulations that apply to office automation equipment procurement, a 1977 GSA regulation { FPMR-101-11 . 9 , Amendment B-36, August 1977) requires agencies to perform feasibility studies with cost justification analyses and to audit the

results of the installation. To aid in compliance with this

regulation, the National Archives and Records Service (NARS)

recently prepared a handbook entitled "Methods and Procedures

for Conducting Word Processing Feasibility Studies" which,

though limited in scope to word processing, is a first attempt

at providing guidance to Federal agencies.

The purpose of this guideline is to present a methodology

for determining the feasibility and practicality of introducing

(or expanding) office automation systems within Federal agencies.

It is designed for use by agency managers who have the responsiblity for productivity improvement, procedural analysis, data

processing, or office systems.

5
1 . 1 Technologies and Benefits

Computer-based office information systems are built

around three principal technologies:

Data Processing, including storage and

retrieval

Document Production, including input, editing

and output

Communications, among and between both humans

and machines.

Depending on the tasks to be accomplished within the particular

office to be served, office automation systems may contain different mixes of these three classes of technology.

The object of an office automation system is to improve the

productivity of the office it serves. In general, productivity

is a ratio of output to input; productivity is improved whenever

the ratio increases. In offices, productivity is measured relative to labor expended; productivity improves whenever the quantity or quality of office products increases relative to the

labor applied.

There is generally some expense involved in improving productivity. While some procedural or organizational changes may

be relatively inexpensive to implement, a typical office automation system represents a significant expense to an agency. This

expense is justified if the value of the productivity increase

exceeds the cost to achieve it (including the cost of designing,

installing and operating the system). The value of a productivity improvement may be in any of the following terms:

Cost savings through a reduction in labor time

or rates in the areas concerned

Cost avoidance through an ability to handle an increased workload with less than proportionate

labor increase

Improved performance of agency mission through

improved quality of office products or services.

1 . 2 Justifying Office Automation

In order for an agency to justify a proposed office automation system, it must:

Gain a sufficient understanding of the work performed in the office to know where productivity

improvements can be achieved

6
Develop specifications for one or more office

automation systems that can yield an expected,

measurable improvement in productivity

Demonstrate that the value of the productivity

improvements exceed the costs of the proposed

system by a sufficient margin.

The guidelines in this document address each of these

problems. First, a methodology is suggested that can enable an

agency to gather information about the work that is performed

in its offices in such a way as to reveal the unit costs of

individual activities. This permits attention to be focused on

those areas that consume the greatest amount of labor input and

thus are presumably the most susceptible to productivity improvement. The methodology focuses on the "products" or outputs of

the agency, which may be written results or services performed.

The labor contributions of both professionals and clericals at

all stages of production for each product or service are measured.

The following general stages of product preparation are considered:

Input

Production

Output

Distribution

Actually, each product or service is traced though all the steps

necessary for its completion, with applied labor tabulated for

each step. In addition, staff time that does not contribute

directly to agency outputs is tabulated separately.

Once the nature and costs of agency office work is known,

systems can be designed to improve productivity in those areas

where opportunities are seen to exist. Different office technologies are applicable to different stages of production. By

tabulating labor consumption separately for each stage, the appropriate technologies to be considered in detail are suggested.

Based on the data collected and estimated productivity improvement factors for each technology, one or more "design models"

are constructed. A design model is a block diagram or conceptual approach to a new system that illustrates the components

of the system without all the detail necessary for actual procurement of components or actual implementation. The design

model is, however, described in sufficient detail to permit the

benefits from the proposer system to be determined.

Based on the design model(s), detailed functional specifications are then prepared for the proposed systems. These

specifications are sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable

estimate to be made of the cost of each proposed system, through

reference to price lists of currently available components. Once

both benefits and costs are determined for each alternative, a cost/benefit analysis can be performed.

7
The cost/benefit analysis consists of comparing all the

costs and all the benefits for the current system and each

design model over some appropriate time period (typically

the expected lifetime for a design model). The net benefit

for an alternative is the difference between total benefits

and total costs (expressed in current dollars). All systems

for which the net benefit is positive can be considered

feasible or "justified."

There are certain complications to be considered in

performing such an analysis. Costs are generally straightforward to identify and tabulate, but care must be taken that

all costs are included. Identifying and quantifying all

benefits is more difficult. Changes in labor inputs, either

through labor reduction or substitution by lower cost labor,

can be estimated based on productivity factors typical of

each equipment type. Qualitative improvements in the products or services of the agency must however, be quantified

subjectively. Such improvements are real and significant, but

adequate justification must be provided when they are valued.

Such quantification is difficult, thus it is often easier to

use qualitative factors as a means of ranking alternatives

after the alternatives have been justified through "hard"

savings

.

Subsequent chapters of this Guideline deal with determining the current level of office productivity, constructing a design model, and preparing a cost justification. One additional

chapter deals with post implementation audits. This is an

important aspect to office systems projects, since data are

not abundant on the levels of success realized through different

approaches and technologies. By collecting data again after

implementation in the same format as was collected originally,

a valuable data base can be compiled that will assist in

future projects and justifications. Such audits can be

conducted specifically of the office automation project, or

as a part of regular reviews of agency operations.

This Guideline, then, addresses all the key steps that

an agency must take in order to justify an automated system to

improve the productivity of its office operations. The general

methodology recommended (the "product" approach) is an analytical

tool designed to facilitate the preparation of such justifications.

There are several data collection methodologies (direct observation, structured recall, controlled-interval self -observat ion

)

that can be appropriately selected and used to provide the necessary data concerning the current system. The scarcity of data on

productivity factors associated with different technologies will

only be remedied as more systems are implemented and carefully

audited. For the present, reliable data is really only available for the word processing and data processing components of

office systems. For this reason, the examples cited focus

heavily on these areas, though the methodology is applicable to

all types of office technology.

8
What distinguishes this methodology from the traditional

word processing study techniques is its emphasis on professional

productivity improvement. Because professional staff generally

earn significantly higher salaries than do support staff, it

is evident that the major benefits of office automation will

be realized only when professional productivity is improved.

This can be accomplished partially by improving support staff

productivity, since many non-professional functions performed

by professionals can be shifted to the support staff. However,

full realization of the opportunities from office automation

requires improvement in the productivity of professional tasks

as well.

As just indicated, these Guidelines are intended to address

the determination of requirements for the full range of

office automation equipment, including word processing, data

base management, information storage and retrieval, telecommunications and data processing. These technolgies can be analyzed

individually with the recommended methodology, or preferably,

an integrated approach can be taken. Due to practical considerations of time and cost, agency managers may find it advisable

to limit the scope of the study. Guidance on how to perform

this scoping effort is provided in Chapter 2. In no case,

however, should any of the major activities described in the

methodology be eliminated. Finally, the use of this Guideline

cannot ensure the identified productivity benefits will be

achieved nor guarantee that the opportunity for improvement

will, in fact, be exploited. This task requires management

commitment to ongoing measurements of work performed by the

organization.

9
2. DETERMINING BASELINE OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY

2.1. Int roduct ion

Productivity can be defined as an efficiency ratio of

input resources to output results. Productivity can be improved by:

reducing input resources without reducing output

results

increasing output results without increasing

input resources

increasing output results by proportionately more

than an increase in input resources

decreasing output results by proportionately less

than a decrease in input resources

In all four possible cases, the current level of productivity in the organization is the standard or "baseline"

against which changes are measured. Thus, the baseline must

be measured before the feasibility of any proposed changes

can be analyzed.

The study methodology presented herein is characterized

by a set of procedures for collecting and analyzing office

productivity data. To aid in the measurement of productivity

improvements, similar procedures are followed during an initial

feasibility study of existing (i.e., baseline) office productivity and subsequent audits of the automated office. These

procedures are applicable regardless of the size of the organization under study. If, however, the study is being performed for a newly established office or one that is

significantly expanding its responsibilities, baseline productivity may have to be estimated through comparisons with similar

size organizations performing similar type work.

Baseline office productivity data are collected in

two formats, with each format targeted on both professional

and support activities. The first and primary format is

"product" oriented and the second involves a general office

work analysis.

A "product" is defined as a regularly produced output,

either in written form or as a service, contributed to by

one or more individuals and requiring significant amounts of

time and cost. For example, preparation of budget justifications normally involves input from numerous individuals

with different responsibilities ranging from actual preparation to final review. Each individual may not be continuously

10
involved in the preparation of this product, but his or her

contribution towards its completion must be tabulated. The

two advantages of relying upon products as the primary units

of analysis are that they tend to evolve slowly within an

organization from year to year and they represent a common

language to all.

Product oriented data are obtained through a study of

the existing preparation efforts and procedures of both

the professional and support staffs. From these data,

measures of baseline productivity are derived and used in

designing an office automation system which includes procedural and/or organizational modifications to effect

productivity improvements.

Employees may also be engaged in office work that does

not contribute directly to products — training is one such

example, waiting for work is another. It is important to

gain some understanding of the distribution of this nonproduct oriented work as well as the product oriented

work. Not all of the non-product oriented work (such as training) can be addressed through office automation, but

some of it (such as waiting for work) can be. General office

work activity data also serves to validate and refine key

product data.

To obtain these baseline data, an office work analysis

is conducted to identify daily activities performed by

both the professional and support staffs. These activities

are than assessed in terms of level of effort (i.e., staff

time) and cost to the organization. The data can be collected through direct observation or through a recently developed

technique of controlled interval self -observat ion

.

The resulting baseline office productivity profile,

developed from both the key product and office work analyses,

serves three purposes. First, it serves as the basis for

designing automated enhancements and procedural modifications to the existing processes and in identifying

organizational changes of potential benefit. Secondly, it

is used when assessing the cost justification of the office

automation system. Thirdly, it is used in examining the

post-implementation audit results.

The remainder of this chapter presents and discusses

the three primary activities which are required to determine

baseline office productivity. These activities are:

Preliminary Study Activities

Key Product Analysis

Office Work Analysis

11
2.2. Preliminary Study Activities

The preliminary study activities include study team

structuring/planning, organizational notification of the study,

initial office research, senior management interviews, and

study tools development. These activities form the foundation

for subsequent study efforts.

2.2.1. Study Team Structuring/Planning

Team member selection is of critical importance to

the successful completion of the subsequent study activities.

The team should ideally include members drawn from both the

professional and support staffs within the organization to

obtain a wide range of perspectives, and members who have

previously demonstrated strong investigative, questioning,

and analytical skills. In addition, team members should

have functional experience within the organization since

this implies an understanding of the organization's structure.

They should also have previously demonstrated their ability

to work in an organized manner toward a common objective.

Finally, and most importantly, they should have some knowledge

of various office automation technologies. If individuals possessing these attributes are not available within the organization to participate in the study effort, it is advisable

to seek outside assistance from either other Federal organizations or from private contractors.

Organizational management selects the study team and

informs the members of its purpose, their expected commitments,

and the expected completion date for the study. A team manager

is selected to serve as the daily coordinator of all study

related activities.

There are numerous factors that should be considered when

determining the size of the study team and the scope of the

study effort. These factors include:

Size of the proposed study area within the

organization

Skill level of proposed study team members

Number of senior managers within the proposed

study area

Number of products within the proposed study area

Number of key product contributors

Total number of staff members v^ithin the proposed

study area

Complexity of products within the proposed study

area

12
size of the budget likely to be available for

office automation

Number of different equipment types to be considered

Number of alternate system designs to be considered

Level of team knowledge concerning various office

automation technologies.

Initially, information on many of these factors will be

unknown; some will remain unknown until after the study has

begun. Therefore, to initially structure the study team and

estimate the required time, a small team may initially be

established and a preliminary work plan and schedule prepared

based upon the best estimates of the team manager. These

estimates are then presented for approval to organizational

management. If, after review, management decides that the

time and costs required to perform the study are too great,

a decision must be made to limit the scope of the study effort. The study scope can be limited to either a few predetermined key products, a small section within the total

organization, and/or to specific product preparation phases

(i.e. input, production, output, distribution). In no

case, however, should any of the major study activities

be eliminated. To aid management in the scoping decision,

it is advisable that the extent of the study effort be

related to either the estimated size of the office automation procurement budget or to the realistic availability

of staff resources to perform the study.

Once the plan is approved and the study scope is determined, the study team is formally organized and each member

reviews this guideline.

2.2.2. Organizational Notification of the Study

Following the structuring of the study team, organizational management next informs all employees within the study

area of the nature, purpose, and importance of the study.

This opportunity is used to convey management commitment to

the success of the study efforts and to allay any anxieties.

Ideally, a meeting is held to explain the purpose of the

study and to introduce the team members. However, if this

is impractical, a letter/memorandum to all office personnel

within the study area is distributed. To help ensure a successful data collection effort, the staff must understand

that their cooperation is required and expected. Additionally, the message must be conveyed that the study objective

is to improve organizational productivity and make staff

work easier.

13
2.2.3. Initial Office Research

After organizational notification is given, the study

team conducts initial research activities to compile a preliminary list of study area products and gather other

information in preparation for the subsequent activity of

senior management interviews. Official documentation pertaining to the organization's functions is reviewed to

assist in preparing the product list. Because this may be

difficult in some organizations. Appendix A contains a "Typical List of Products" to help guide the study team in

product identification. Organizational research is also

performed to identify those senior managers who will be

interviewed during the subsequent study activity. The

criteria for interviewee selection includes individual

management involvement in multiple products and an overall

understanding of the existing efforts required for product

preparat ion

.

2.2.4. vSenior Management Interviews

The purpose of the senior management interviews is to

narrow the focus of the study effort to several key products

(a subset of all identified products) that represent the

performance of major office activities and would appear

to benefit from the introduction of one or more types of

office automation equipment. These key products will be

subject to further examination during subsequent study

act ivit ies

.

A pre-interview memorandum which includes the preliminary list of products, developed during the initial office

research, is distributed a few days prior to the interview

to assist the manager in preparing for the discussion.

The memorandum restates the study objectives, explains

why the interviewee has been selected, provides interview

objectives, defines any necessary terms, and describes

specifically what is expected as a result of the interview.

To assist the senior manager in narrowing the preliminary

list of products, three criteria which relate to organizational importance and labor intensity are provided:

Lengthy and intensive professional staff prepartion due to the need to collect and reformat existing information

High percentage of professional effort expended

performing support-type functions

High percentage of support effort to prepare

products

.

14
Interview teams should consist of two people to ensure

that all issues are covered and all comments recorded. An

interview guide will be developed to obtain the following

data

:

General information on the product preparation activities, key product contributors, external interfaces to the preparation processes,

and annual volume for each product the senior

manager feels meets one or more of the stated

criteria

Recommendations for or against the automation of any specific product

Judgments as to any specific areas or processes

that may be prime candidates for automation

Information regarding any prior experience

with automation that would be of interest to the

study team

Those productivity factors for each product

(i.e., timeliness, responsiveness, convenience,

appearance) that appear to be relevant to the

senior managers

Information regarding changing workloads and

projected organizational changes to be effected in

the near future

Suggestions and recommendations that will be

beneficial to the study efforts.

After the senior management interviews are completed, the

study team analyzes the results and recommends a group of

key products for detailed examination. The key product

recommendations are presented for approval to organizational

management. A sample of each key product is secured and

preliminary key product flow diagrams are prepared. These

diagrams are segmented into the preparation phases of input,

production, output, and distribution. (An example is presented

in Exhibit 2.) Definitions of each phase are presented in

Appendix E, "Technology Assessment".

2.2.5. Study Tools Development

Data collection tools for development and use by the study

team in performing the detailed key product analysis include:

15
16
Source Identification Guide '— The purpose of

this tool is to obtain structural information

about the study area. Current information is

requested on the names, titles, locations, and

telephone numbers of key product contributors

and their associated reporting relationships

and position responsibilities. This information

is used for reference purposes during subsequent

study activities.

Key Product Tracking Guide — The purpose of this

tool is to identify the detailed key product

preparation activities from input to distribution.

In addition to noting their own participation,

key product contributors list, in chronological

order, the names, offices, activities performed,

and estimated levels of effort for all other key

product contributors. This information is used to

develop detailed baseline product flow diagrams

and determine those activities subject to further

invest igat ion

.

Definitions of Terms — The purpose of this tool is

to provide the key product contributors with the

definitions of data collection terms to be used

by the study team during the interviews. A sample

of this tool is presented in Appendix B.

Key Product Interview Worksheet — The purpose of

this tool is to decompose the estimated level of

effort (i.e., number of hours) for each key product

activity into its component tasks and functions.

A sample is presented in Appendix C. This information is used to develop aggregate levels of effort

and cost regarding the preparation of key products.

Key Product Interview Guide — The purpose of this

tool is to collect characteristic data on the tasks

and functions identified in the Key Product Interview Worksheet. A sample is presented in Appendix

C. This information will aid in the design of an

office automation system.

The study team should review the information provided

in Section 2.3 of this guideline before developing or modifying these tools so that each member understands their purpose,

use, and necessity. As a result of this review, the team

may modify the tools based on organizational considerations.

However, if modifications occur, they should be approved by

management before taking effect.

17
Data collection tools to be developed and used by the study

team in performing the office work analysis include:

Professional Daily Activity Log — The purpose of

this tool is to collect actual time/volume data

on professional activities. This log lists the

data items (tasks) included in the Key Product

Interview Worksheet and any other major identifiable tasks. Respondents will note the hours they

expend during the day in performing these tasks

and the following associated data characteristics

for each task:

Was the task accomplished by a totally manual

process? (yes or no)

- Was any equipment used in performing the task?

If so, what type of equipment and how many

hours was it used?

- Was any travel necessary to perform the task?

If so, how many hours?

- Were any support-type functions performed by

the professional to accomplish the task? If

so, what type and how many hours?

This information is used to develop aggregate levels

of effort and costs regarding general office work

act ivit ies

.

Definitions of Terms -- The purpose of this tool

is to provide the professionals with definitions

of data collection terms to be used in completing

the Daily Activity Log. The sample Definitions of

Terms is presented in Appendix B.

Professional Questionnaire — The purpose of this

tool is to ascertain perceptions of work performance,

support requirements, and the reactions to potential

automation. A sample is presented in Appendix D.

Support Daily Activity Log — The purpose of this

tool is to collect actual time/volume data on support activities. The log lists support data items

(functions) as: taking dictation, transcribing,

typing, photocopying/collating, filing, telephone

coverage, sorting/delivering mail, preparing

forms in longhand, posting information, using facsimile, composing letters, doing math calculations.

18
researching, maintaining the office, and any other

major identifiable functions. Respondents will

note the hours they expend during the day in

performing these functions and the following

associated data characteristics for each function:

- Was the function accomplished by a totally

manual process? (yes or no)

- Was any equipment used in performing the

function? If so, what type of equipment and

how many hours was it used?

- How many pages (or units) were associated

with the performance of the function?

This information is used to develop aggregate levels

of effort and costs regarding general office work

act ivit ies

,

Typing Summary — The purpose of this tool is to

obtain actual information on the format and daily

volume of submitted materials. The following data

characteristics are captured for each document

typed: type of submission (new or revised), equipment

used (typewriter or word processor), input form

(longhand, shorthand, machine transcription, cut/

pasted, computer printout, or previously typed), and

format (original text, standardized text, statistics,

forms fill-ins, graphics, or other). A copy of each

document typed is attached to this tool.

Support Questionnaire — The purpose of this tool

is to identify perceptions of work performance,

support requirements, and reaction to potential

automation. A sample is presented in Appendix D.

The study team should review the information provided in

Section 2.4 of this guideline before developing or modifying

these tools so that each member understands their purpose,

use, and necessity. As a result of this review, the team

may modify the tools based on organizational considerations.

If modifications occur, they should be approved by management

before taking effect.

As the final preliminary study activity, the study team

decides how to summarize the study results. If the study area

is large or composed of many functional groups, the data should

first be summarized by work group, department, or similar

functional unit and then collected into an organizational

summary. If the study area is small, an organizational

summary only need be prepared.

19
After all preliminary study activities are completed,

the study team is ready to begin the in-depth data collection effort. The activities associated with the key product and office work analyses are presented in the following

sections. Several of these activities can be performed

simultaneously, but no activities should be omitted.

2.3. Key Product Analysis

The key product analysis is a quantitative exercise

designed to collect and analyze data regarding the levels of

staff effort (number of hours) and costs required to prepare

specific key products selected for detailed examination as

a result of the Senior Managemenent interviews. The general ap

proach is one of "structured recall" in which a survey

instrument is completed by key product contributors. The

instrument forces consistent reporting by participants on

all the key products to which they contribute. Once the

data have been collected and reviewed, opportunities for

potential productivity improvement can be identified. These

data consider the efforts of both professional and support

staff.

During the key product analysis, product preparation effort is examined through the generic phases of input, production, output, and distribution. Level of effort data for

all key products are collected from key product contributors

and summarized by activity within each of these phases. Interviews should also be conducted with those individuals

outside of the study area who have been identified as external

interfaces to the preparation of key products. Key product

preparation activities are composed of both tasks and functions where professional contributions are defined as tasks

and support contributions are defined as functions. Interviews with contributing personnel provide the answers to the

"what, vtiere, how, and how much" questions for each key

product

.

Once the key product analysis is complete, the accumulated data allow the study team to determine the baseline

productivity associated with key product preparation and the

associated key product costs. In addition, the key product

flow diagrams provide illustrations of the preparation

phases and specific activities. These accumulated data are

used later in determining the potential impact of a set of

organizational, procedural, and technological modifications

to improve key product preparation.

2.3.1. Pre-Interview Considerations

The prerequisite to this stage of the key product analysis is the completion of the senior management interviews.

The results of these interviews provide guidance for the key

20
product analysis data collection effort by identifying key

products for further study, providing preliminary key product

flow diagrams, and the names and locations of key product

contributors

.

At this point, a pre-interview packet, containing the

Source Identification Guide, Key Product Tracking Guide (one

for each key product) and Preliminary Key Product Flow Diagrams, is distributed to each key product contributor. (Each

tool was previously described in section 2.2.5.) Packets are

dissimilar to the extent that they contain Preliminary Key

Product Flow Diagrams (and accompanying Tracking Guides) for

the key products to which the individual contributes. In

addition to these tools, a transmittal memorandum is included

restating the study objectives, why the key product contributors are involved, what is expected from them, and a list

of their relevant key products. Key product contributors

provide their best estimates regarding the existing level of

effort required to prepare each key product. After reviewing

these materials, the study team decides which key product

preparation activities consume significant effort and thus

require further investigation.

2.3.2. Interviews With Key Product Contributors

Interviews with key product contributors are conducted

to further define the existing level of professional and

support effort required to prepare each key product. Interview teams should consist of two people to ensure that all

issues are discussed and all comments recorded. To guide

the interview, the study team provides the key contributor

with the Definitions of Terms and completes the Key Product

Interview Worksheet and Key Product Interview Guide for

each key product activity under consideration. Also during

the interview, the annual key product volume previously

estimated by the senior managers is confirmed or modified.

The "data package" resulting from each key product contributor interview consists of:

Completed Source Identification Guide

Completed Key Product Tracking Guides for each key

product

Completed Key Product Interview Worksheets for each

activity of each key product

Completed Key Product Interview Guides for each

activity of each key product.

21
2.3.3. Uses Of Key Product Analysis Data

After completing the interviews, the study team must

make a subjective decision as to whether an acceptable percent of response from key product contributors has been

received. If not, further interviewing will be conducted.

For example, one previous study ("Office Systems Studies,

Rationale, Techniques and Value"; Guide 47 by Richard A.

Lowenstein, IBM Corporation, White Plains, New York) found

a 65% survey response to be adequate. This, however, should

not be taken as a general guide for all studies. In establishing the acceptable level, the study team must consider

the representativeness of the sample to the entire population.

The data packages are sorted by key product and detailed

key product flow diagrams are prepared showing the activities

within each phase (input-production-output-distribution)

and associated levels of effort. (An example is presented

in Exhibit 3 on the following page.)

Level of effort data for each key product is next annualized by multiplying the key product contributor estimates

by the annual volume. These data are summarized in a matrix

to produce the following measures:

Total key product preparation effort (professional

and support staff)

Total professional staff effort

Professional effort expended performing professional

work

Professional effort expended performing supporttype work

Total support staff effort

Professional Support Ratio ( Rps ) : professional

staff effort performing support-type work expressed

as a percentage of total professional staff effort

Support Staff Ratio (Rs): support staff effort

expressed as a percentage of total key product

preparation effort.

(Exhibit 4 on page 24 presents an example of this matrix.)

Baseline preparation costs for key products are now constructed using the level of effort data. As a first step in

determining these costs, annual average salaries for professional and support staffs engaged in key product preparation

22
u

4J03

Xl0u

Pn

>^

y;

a) zoH

Eh rH D « m C r-l H S-J •H

a; 0) Eh 4-) s X H w Q

CPC

PQ •^^

C s •H

0) tn H > >

0)

Q

C

•H 4-)

J-1 14-1 (0 (0 73D c en u •H c tn 3 •iH u

<u

W 3

4-> •r4 0 > > X Q « LD

00

4-) H>H

4-1 U

73O

Pi

(UC

•H

i-H(U

(d n

(0

>HOo W iH

Sh 3 3 O 0 £o n ixi tN CO n o

a: cm

>4 <N oS II

4-1 4J 0 0

Eh Eh

<0C

B 0

•H Eh

03

toD0

4-> Sh0

II Oi3 4-> W >H ^ ,0

0) 0) Mh

•rH

W

Eh^ ^4a 0 o a

•rH -H 3 WWW W M

1) 0) rH

l»H 14H (0 0 O 4-) iH ^ O

o< a< Eh

IC ITS c c

23
1hQO o o o o o in

O in

rv' CO CN CN

CO in

n ro

>• CN r-H OX CN

Eh

CN,—1 .! ro 1 1 I _

_ Pm

t—1

fa Uj CN c^

O

w

Eh a<

D o fa o

Eh fa<W

vD

CO CO CO

w

ft

H < *

5h o O

O

O o o Q E-i1 t—'

00 CN CN \D CM o o

UJ o o CO CO 00

fa OJ ,—(

CN (T*

W faO

Cm

w r\\j ft 2l-H

i-q 2 CO o o O

O o r-t

O

O E-i

O ^ « H CO CN O w o CO

fa

M vD

fa

W

M fa ^. o oa O

Oh ft r>

i> ^ o o fa lO

M

H fa CO w fa

m CN •vD Eh w P CO Lfi O M fa O CN CN CO vO

Eh fa fa

X o <

a:

a<

w

wuD CO QO < U Q W O <

a;

KEY P O

Eh

24
are determined. In addition, a fixed percentage to provide

for overhead and fringe is determined and added to these

salary figures. Each total is divided by the annual paid

working hours to obtain the hourly professional and support

staff rates. For each key product (as well as phase and

activity within each key product), the level of effort is

multiplied by the hourly rates to determine estimated total

direct key product preparation costs. (Exhibit 5 on the

following page presents an example.)

Once all data collection is completed, the study team can

concentrate on examining the results. An analysis of the key

product matrices and key product flow diagrams permits the

initial identification of potential areas of productivity

improvement as evidenced by:

Lengthy and intensive professional staff preparation time and cost due to the need to collect

and reformat existing information

High percentage of professional effort and cost

expended performing support-type functions (Rps)

High percentage of support effort and cost to

prepare key products (Rs).

As a hypothetical example, consider the data provided in Exhibits

4 and 5. A review of these matrices indicates that key product

G may be susceptible to productivity improvement because of the

high cost and level of effort associated with its preparation.

In this case, the study team would first reference the corresponding key product flow diagram (Exhibit 3) to identify each

activity in the preparation process. For each activity, the

team would next refer to the appropriate interview worksheets and guides (Appendix C) and examine the types of

tasks and functions that are being performed. Using these

data, the study team can determine the potential areas of

productivity improvement for this key product.

When analyzing the key product data, the study team must

be aware that there are limits to the usefulness and validity

of the data that result from asking the respondent to:

Go back too far in memory

Provide answers about the efforts of others during

key product preparation

Attempt to separate work done on key products that

are closely related and similar.

25
EHU 1-5 W

JQ 0 ro CO 00 0 CN < O 2 Eh CN CO CN yo 00 1—1 0 0

Eh Pi 0 CO 0 lO 1—1

LO ro (Ti

O ft CO 0 ** EH Ph u ro CN ro 'nT >H la LO

KE v> </>

J Pi fa < O fa Eh 00 0

Eh ft 1 1 1 1 iH 0 CN O ft EH 0

Eh

D CO

U

W

faft

>H

Q EH H \. W Eh 1 Eh 0^

!n

CO ro 1—I 0

CO CO Mh CN LO CN ^ w o 0 0 0 lO LO 1—1

in CO

fa

U ft

O ft ro )—1

LO

D CN

ft CO •CO-

<: sC 2; 20 H \ H

CO Eh CO CN 1 0 LO

CO CO CO rH 00 w 0 w 1—1 ^ LO r—

Cti

U fa 13 0 0 LO

Pi Oh

ft ft •CO-

<1QH fa rH ro 00 0 LO

sC CO fa EH r\i 00 0

Eh CO <! CO 0 lO i-H LO ro LO 0 W Eh 0   **  *• Eh fa C/2 CJ ro CN 0 CN

P< "CO- ft

W CO 2 EH 0 0

CO

u

CO

W i EH

ft / U

ID CO Q0

Oi

u

D

w faa EH ft 0

EH

>H

fa

26
Although the handling of these cautions is based on

subjective judgment, there are a few notes which should be

considered by the study team. For example, if a problem with

a particular key product arises because many contributors

have exhibited difficulty in recall, that key product may

be eliminated from the analysis. If a problem arises

regarding answers received about the efforts of other

persons during key product preparation, the study team should

confirm those answers directly with the individuals. If

key products seem to be closely related and similar, those

key products may be combined into a "key product package"

and reexamined.

Alternatively, the data collection efforts for the

general office work analysis can be structured in such a way as to validate the structured recall data on product

preparation. Through direct or controlled self-observation, work samples can be collected that describe a pattern of work activity. If a "typical" period is chosen to

collect the data, then data about the same set of key products should be collected as a subset of the entire office

work activity.

Finally, it should be emphasized that all of the data

collected during the key product analysis are quantifiable

and refer to the efficiency of preparing the output. While

not required, the study team may also find it advantageous

to examine data regarding the quality of the work being

performed and the value of the key products to the organization. VJork quality can be defined by such measures as timeliness, responsiveness, completeness, accuracy, appearance,

and convenience. Information on these measures can be

derived from the key product interview results and may be

useful when identifying areas of potential productivity

improvement. Assessing the value of the key products is a more difficult exercise. To adequately perform this effort,

the study team will need to examine the specific programs

or services associated with the key products and estimate

the contribution of these products toward achieving the

mission of the organization. If this can be accomplished,

the team will be able to prioritize the key products in

terms of their importance and correlate this information

with the level of effort results. The nature of the proposed productivity improvements can then be better considered

in light of the value of each key product.

2.4. Office Work Analysis

The office work analysis is performed simultaneously

with the key product analysis and provides data on the

total range of office activities, personnel skill levels.

27
and overhead costs. These data relate to background

activities which are not directly related to key products.

Results of this analysis provide detailed characteristics

on general office work activities and an understanding

of the overall working environment. These include statistics

on how individuals work, their time expended on particular

tasks and functions, the related costs and perceptions of

the current office environment. These results also provide

a means of comparison against those data obtained during

the key product analysis.

2.4.1. Data Collection Activities

Data may be be collected for the office work analysis

in a variety of ways. Direct observation by an outsider

has been one of the established tools of industrial engineers since the days of Frederick Taylor, and can be applied

in the office environment. It is, however, costly to apply

for any significant sample, possibly disruptive of office

operations, and likely to yield distorted results since

people frequently work differently when they are under observation. An alternative is self-recording of time spent in

different activities. This may be accomplished in a variety

of ways, including self-recording in various types of activity logs. The difficulty with this approch is that it is so

unstructured that workers frequently fail to record all

activities. A recently developed technique that can be

described as "controlled interval self -observat ion" provides

another alternative that can be applied in situations where

the collection of accurate office work data is important.

In this approach, workers are provided with personal intervaltimers and log booklets that they carry with them at all times

during the sample period. The timer beeps or sounds an

audible alarm at intervals to signal the worker to record his

or her activity at that very instant. This approach eliminates the sampling bias that may be introduced when workers

are asked to self-sample without such a regimen. The

approach was developed and applied successfully by Booz, Allen

and Hamilton in a recently completed multi-client study of

office worker productivity in the private sector.

The data collection tools for the office work analysis

are distributed to and completed by the professional and

support staff sample within the study area. Where practical,

the entire office staff may participate in the study. It

is suggested that data be collected for ten working days

regardless of organizational size. However, five days is

an acceptable minimum. It is important that the data

collection occur during a "typical" period (e.g., not

during holiday seasons or end-of-year rush) so that the

sample reflects normal operating conditions. Three previously

28
defined data collection tools (Section 2.2.5) are used.

Daily Activity Logs accumulate actual time/volume data and

assist in identifying general office work patterns. Typing

Summaries provide information on the format and volume

of submitted materials and Questionnaires yield information

regarding perceptions of work performance, importance, support

requirements, and reaction to potential automation.

The study team either conducts group meetings with the

staff to explain the tools or uses a transmittal memorandum.

In either case, they remain available to answer any questions

on completing the data collection tools.

During this data collection period, the study team

observes work activities within the study area to identify

demands and bottlenecks in the routine working environment.

They also perform an office inventory of current staffing,

documented procedures (manuals), and existing automated equipment. Finally, the team collects data relating to the liistoric growth rate of the organizational workload and any planned

future organizational changes. When compiled, these data

provide a general picture of the baseline office environment.

Once the Daily Activity Logs, Typing Summaries, and

Quest ionaires have been collected, the study team decides

whether an acceptable percent of response has been received

from the professional and support staff (refer to Section

2.3.3). If not, further data are collected. Individual

Daily Activity Logs are now totaled to complete a weekly

summary for each staff member and Typing Summaries are

completed by computing and recording the line count for

each individual document (copies of documents are attached

to the summaries). Completed staff Questionnaires are reviewed in preparation for follow-up interviews with individuals from the study area.

2.4.2. Follow-up Interviews

The objective of the follow-up interviews is to verify

and augment the collected data. In performing these interviews, a sample is drawn from the professional and support

staffs. Organizational management should assist in determining the sample size and the prospective interviewees.

Factors to be considered during the interviewee selection

process include:

Are the interview candidates also key product

contributors? (It is best to include as many

key product contributors as possible.)

How long have the candidates been with the

organization? (A mix of experienced and relatively new personnel is beneficial.)

29
Is at least one member from each functional group

within the study area included in the candidate

interview sample?

During the follow-up interviews, the study team reviews

with each respondent their completed Questionnaire to ensure

accuracy and understanding in the transcribed data. Two study

team members conduct each interview to ensure that all issues

are discussed and all comments recorded. The interviewees responses pertaining to "how, why, or describe" questions provide descriptive detail and estimated time/volumes on professional and support work activities, the work environment, and

perceptions of upward mobility and staff development within

the organization.

2.4.3. Use of Office Work Analysis Data

After all data collection activities are completed, the

results obtained from the Weekly Activity Summaries, Typing

Summaries, and Questionnaires are summarized by the predetermined groupings, as discussed in Section 2.2.5, and totaled for

the entire study area.

The summarized data are analyzed by the study team to

produce baseline productivity measures as defined below.

Productivity measures which should always be calculated

include

:

Professional Support Ratio (Rps): professional

effort performing support-type work expressed as a percentage of total professional staff time.

Support Staff Ration (Rs): support staff effort

expressed as a percentage of total staff time.

Other representative measures which may be calculated include:

Total hours and related cost for each professional

task such as planning, consulting, etc.

Total hours and related cost for professional

effort performing support -type work

Total hours and related cost for each support

function such as typing, filing, etc.

Management should participate in determining those productivity

measures which appear to be meaningful to the organization.

The study team then compares the office work analysis and

key product analysis data. If significant differences are

identified between these analyses, the reasons behind the

variances must be determined. For example, do there appear

30
to be major discrepancies between the professional support

ratios calculated during the key product and office work

analyses? These discrepancies may exist because professionals may not have accurately estimated their time performing

functional type work when questioned during the key product

analysis interviews. After the issues are resolved, the

study team completes the baseline office productivity profile

and prepares a summary report on the findings from both the

key product and the office work analyses.

2.5. Summary

This chapter of the guideline presented the methodology

associated with determining the productivity profile for the

baseline office environment. The following points should be

considered during each stage of the effort:

Preliminary Study Activities

- Study team members are drawn from both the

professional and support staffs. The selected

individuals should exhibit certain capabilities.

(Section 2.2.1)

- Study team size is dependent on several factors,

and should be appropriately sized for the task

and resources of the organization (2.2.1)

- Selection of senior management interviewees

is based on managerial involvement in multiple

products and his/her overall understanding of

the existing efforts required for product

preparation. (2.2.3)

- As a result of the senior management interviews, certain prioritized products are labeled

as "key products" for further analysis. (2.2.4)

- The study team must decide how to summarize

baseline results prior to conducting the

detailed key product and office work

analyses. (2.2.5)

Key Product Analysis

After preliminary level of effort estimates

are provided by the key product contributors, the study team must decide which activities require further investigation

through interviews. (2.3.1)

- After completing the key product interviews,

the study team must decide whether an acceptable

31
percent of response has been received from key

product contributors. (2.3.3)

The study team must be aware that there are

limits to the usefulness and validity of the

key product analysis data. (2.3.3)

Office Work Analysis

- Data should be collected for ten working days,

regardless of organizational size. Five days,

however, is an acceptable minimum. (2.4.1.)

- After completion of the data collection time

period, the study team must decide whether an

acceptable percent of response has been

received from both professional and support

staff. (2.4.1)

- In performing the follow-up interviews,

a sample should be drawn from both

professional and support staffs. (2.4.2)

- Management should participate in determining

those productivity measures which appear to

be meaningful to the organization. (2.4.3)

- If a significant variance exists between the

the data collected during the key product

and office work analyses, the study team

must determine the reasons behind this

variance before proceeding with the study.

(2.4.3)

The study team must be aware that there are

limits to the usefulness and validity of

the office work analysis data. (2.4.3)

The study team must also remember not to:

Add, delete, or modify any responses received from

a staff member during both data collection efforts

unless that individual has concurred.

Eliminate any data collection steps from either the

key product or office work analyses.

32
3. DESIGNING THE OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM

3.1. Introduct ion

This chapter of the guideline focuses on the methodology

for creating a macro level design model of the office automation system. As a first step in this effort, the baseline

productivity data are translated into a set of system

requirements which are expressed in quantitative terms so

that measurable and comparable key product preparation improvements can be defined. System requirements are statements

of design intent and must answer the question, "What is the

system required to do?"

Once the requirements have been determined, a system design model is prepared by identifying proposed

modifications to each phase of key product preparation.

These modifications are generally a combination of organizational, procedural, and technological changes.

Where possible, the expected effect of each change is

estimated independently so that the alternatives can be

ranked. In many cases, though, a set of changes has a synergistic effect (for example, a technological change

may require procedural and organizational changes to be

effective); in such cases the set should be considered as a whole. Those changes or sets of changes which appear to

have the best productivity potential are incorporated into

the system design model and further defined.

System requirements are a statement of user needs and

organizational objectives in quantitative terms. They are

derived by comparing baseline productivity data to a set of

productivity goals where the differences between the baseline data and the productivity goals become the requirements

of the office automation system. If the performance of this

study relates to a newly established office, or one which is

being assigned significant new responsibilities, the study

team determines the system requirements based on their understanding of the type and amount of work to be performed. Requirements are stated in quantitative terms to permit comparative analyses of proposed productivity improvements. In addition, they consider projected changes to the baseline organizational environment to better reflect expected conditions

at the time of system implementation.

As a first step in determining the system requirements,

the study team identifies productivity goals to be achieved

3.2. Determining the System Requirements

33
by the office automation system. During the previously

conducted senior management interviews (Section 2.2.4), the

study team noted the relevant productivity factors of each

key product. Responses received concerning each factor

(i.e., timeliness, responsiveness, convenience, and appearance)

indicated its relative importance to the senior managers in

terms of key product preparation. For example, if timeliness

was identified as a primary concern for a particular key

product, the suggested productivity goal may be to reduce

revision typing time. If convenience was cited as a primary

concern, the suggested productivity goal may be to reduce

professional effort expended during the product input phase.

Key product contributor interview notes are also reviewed

to identify suggested productivity goals. The study team

uses these data, together with the senior management interview

results, and prepares a set of composite productivity goals

for all key products. The proposed system requirements are

determined by comparing these goals to the baseline data.

When determining system requirements, the study team

considers projected changes to the baseline environment.

Will the demand for the organization's products, services,

programs, or responses be changing in the near future? If

so, such changes may very well have an impact on the proposed

office automation system. To account for these changes, the

proposed requirements attempt to reflect the projected

organizational status at least two years in the future. Data

on the projected changes to the baseline were previously collected during the senior management interviews (Section 2.2.4).

The study team also uses judgement in ensuring the

feasibility and significance of the proposed requirements.

For example, the baseline data may indicate that certain

activities are already being accomplished quite efficiently,

leaving little room for further improvement. System requirements must therefore represent significant improvements to

baseline productivity based on team judgement.

There are no specific limits on the number of system

requirements that can be proposed. Using the data collected

on productivity goals and key products, the study team

derives a set of requirements that appear to meet the needs

of the organization under study. To ensure that the most

important needs are met the proposed system requirements

are prioritized and presented to organizational management

for approval and/or modification. Once approved, the requirements are used as a basis for constructing a design model

for the office automation system.

34
3.3. Creation of a System Design Model

The system design model is a blueprint for satisfying

the system requirements to effect productivity improvements.

These improvements are derived from three types of changes —

organizational, procedural, and technological.

An organizational improvement opportunity occurs

when one functional area performs an activity

that could be better accomplished by a different

area. For example, the baseline results may

indicate that delays in the product input phase

occur because contributors from three different

work groups are involved even though all information can be obtained from one group. An organizational relocation of responsibilities could

in this case effect productivity improvement.

A procedural improvement opportunity is characterized by the inefficient use of professional and/or

support staff. For example, the baseline data

may indicate that an inordinate amount of effort

is expended by professional key product contributors in performing support functions. A procedural shift in responsibilities could, in this case,

effect productivity improvement.

A technological or automation improvement opportunity is identified when there is under-utilizat ion

of existing equipment or an unfulfilled need for

automated support. For example, the baseline results may indicate that the professional effort

expended on retrieving and reformatting existing

data could be reduced by installing some form of

professional terminal with access to multiple data

bases

.

These three types of changes may sometimes be effective

individually or as alternatives for improving office productivity; more often, they are required to be applied in combination to. be effective. New technologies frequently require new

procedures and even new organizational structures to be effective. Changes in procedures are sometimes an alternative to

new technology. Changes in organizational structure alone frequently result in productivity improvements, but these are often

trans itory

.

As system alternatives are developed, each system requirement is analyzed in terms of these factors. Additionally,

the associated behavioral and staffing impacts are considered.

Behavioral impacts normally take the form of resistance to

change. Staffing impacts relate to the use of appropriate

35
personnel to perform specific tasks and functions. The

study team uses the following baseline data in reviewing

these impacts: key product contributor interview notes,

office work analysis questionnaires, and baseline key product

flow diagrams.

As a result of this review, the study team creates a system design model to achieve the defined requirements. To

develop this model, the study team first reviews the results

of the key product analysis and the areas of potential productivity improvement that were identified for each individual key product (Section 2.3.3). These improvements are

categorized as being organizational, procedural, or technological. From this set of "working papers", a system

design model for all key products is prepared that incorporates only those organizational, procedural, and/or technological modifications that will potentially provide the

most benefit in achieving the system requirements. (An

example is presented in Exhibit 6.) The model may include

one or more applicable equipment types for each product

preparation phase:

Input equipment types include dictation devices,

optical character readers, etc.

Product ion equipment types include word processors,

mini-computers, etc.

Output equipment types include printers, microfilm,

etc

.

Distribut ion equipment types include facsimile,

intelligent copiers, etc.

Definitions for these and other representative office automation equipment types are presented in Appendix E, "Technology

Assessment "

.

After the system design model is developed, the study

team prepares a new set of key product flow diagrams which

detail, by preparation phase, the proposed modifications and

the projected professional and support levels of effort.

These new flow diagrams are based on the system design model

and specify the organizational, procedural, and/or technological modifications to the baseline preparation processes.

All components of the system design model are employed but

not necessarily within each key product flow. For example,

the system design model may include the provision of CRT

terminals to aid the professional staff in key product

preparation. The capability of each terminal to perform

36
^1

t/1 (0 o

4-) 15

(1)

U

-P >i

•rH tj nS

1-1

U iH

(d 3 o <D -p

W

-H ft -p -P Cn >i 0) C P 0 4-J w (U

u

iH

w

M e <u d) 0 U Jj Oh c: w -p c c u •H 0 s-l D (I) x: c 0 3 -a rH 0 .H u 0 (fl to 6 •H

0) S-l 0 (U 1 w 0 e

Eh -p ce; 4-1 0)u •H 0 u A< C c u H Ul

(1) o V) 0 (0 0 c u \ 0) rH o p u •rH as w s D P o w (U s

Ul

0) •pc

•HI

0)

(0

4J 1 tn (tJ CO Sh +J

0) (fl •rH

u e UH •H

-p Sh tl -d

U5 0 a' Q) tu rH u lU 4-1 T! tp e

0) -rH Sh •H 0 rH

ip Cn 8 (U c > H

O c ft 0 Q) 14H 0) -H •H U tn 0

-p <U tn ft 3 Sh c •H £! U

rH lU •H

•H 0) tn rH rH x: e

03 Sh H-) t/1 rH MH 0) •H -p

(U rH Oi

u s-l •H UH x> in Q)

Q (0 3 0) (0 !-l x: XI u rH rO J-) 4-) rH 0 01 e a -H 0 H w W .H 4-1 U-) 3 rH "a

(U -a •H

MU c •rH 3 ttJ 0 rH d) -p S ft 0 rH 3 X3 4-1 ^ •H rH

tn o 0) •H n3 •rH tn x: 4-1 3 •H

>i 0 MH >, ft 4-> c 14-1 S-l 4-)

C U-I

w

u MH 0) >( •0 0 U-i 4J rH <D tn

tJ ^ -p 4-> •H (C tn (0 4J +J

C

-P 3 w 4-1 •rH c 3 ft <un

tn iM

u ft tn tn Ti 0 ft •H x: 0 H H c 3 u 4-1

H-) !-1 0 in 4-1 4-1 tn •rH tj< -P S-l w -P (J 0 Sh O tn 0) Sh •H 0 H-) u tn s-l 0 3 tu 4-1 rH 0

X! ft MH (U 4-1 x; ft ft Tl li-i M-J c x; -H ft Id H c 4-) ft 0 0 (d 0 c 4-1 x: 3 n 0) 0 ffl >1 3 Sh Sh Sh •H H 10 X to t) tn i)H CO ft CU Tl 4-1 Sh w 0 3 4-1 Cn tu 0) 1 1 C O •H

<U (U •H (d > C

Sh Sh x: rH <D •H rH 4-1 u ft Sh +4

tu

m tu (U Sh 01 Id X! •rH tji XI Id c u D rH

rH 4J x> o x: 0) tn

Id rH •rl 3 rH tn •H rH 4J !h c c rH C XI rH CJ 4J rH 0 0 •H •H •H Vh nJ •H C tn H

•H 3 4H 3 3 rl 4J 4-1 4J S-l 0 s-l 0 Id

td <: 0 m 0 0 O .=« 3 o N IH c MH H-l Tl •H •H ft 0 ft C ft ft 0 rH C 3 0) •H 3 0) •H 3 3 Sh ft

(d 0 rH 4-1 0 rH 0 0 ft ft

Di S-l X! rd Sh X! Sh Sh Id

Sh

H rH •H >i

O tn •H tn Vl d) 4-1 c ft ItJ ^ c tJi ^ rV ;:<; C

Sh 0 e 4J Sh 0 0 !h Sh Id 0 ft 0 fd 0 ft Sh 0 0 MH Sh S tn 0 T! tn ft 3 0

37
different functions (e.g. automated calendaring, information tracking, personal information retrieval) will depend

on the amount and type of contribution that the professional

makes toward the preparation of each key product.

The amount of projected productivity improvement is now

determined for each key product. Using the interview results

from the key product and office work analyses (Sections 2.3,

2.4), the new key product flow diagrams and the data contained

in Appendix E (which also focuses on the benefits and detriments of representative office automation equipment), the

study team prepares a matrix estimating the projected productivity impact of the proposed technological modifications.

Estimates of projected productivity improvements to be achieved

as a result of organizational and procedural modifications

are similarly determined although Appendix E is not used.

Instead, the study team examines the baseline level of

effort expended in performing each key product activity and

decides what steps will be eliminated as a result of the

modifications. The productivity improvement (in terms of

reducing the level of effort) is then estimated and included

in the matrix. The study team must recognize that it is not

always possible to quantitatively segment the specific degree

of improvements resulting from organizational, procedural,

and technological factors. For example, the productivity improvement associated with a procedural change may be dependent

on and interrelated with a corresponding technological

modification. The study team may not be able to separate

the time savings and will thus find it necessary to report

the improvement as resulting from the set as a whole. Ideally,

though, the productivity improvement matrix should include

the following types of information:

Baseline Total Hours Required to Prepare Key

Products -- The level of effort for each key

product is presented in the matrix prepared per

instructions in Section 2.3.3. (An example was

presented in Exhibit 4.)

Projected Total Hours to Prepare Key Products as

a Result of Organizational Modifications — This

figure illustrates the impact of organizational

modifications on baseline productivity for each

key product (determined from interview results and

the new key product flow diagrams). When computed,

this figure is reflected on each new key product

flow diagram.

Productivity Improvements to be Achieved Through

Organizational Modifications -— This figure

indicates the percentage improvement projected

through the implementation of organizational

modifications.

38
Projected Total Hours to Prepare Key Products as a Result of Procedural Modifications — This figure

illustrates the impact of procedural modifications

on baseline productivity for each key product (determined from interview results and the new key product

flow diagrams). When computed, this figure is reflected on each new key product flow diagram.

Productivity Improvements to be Achieved Through

Procedural Modifications -- This figure indicates

the percentage improvement projected through the

implementation of procedural modifications.

Projected Total Hours to Prepare Key Products as

a Result of Technological Modifications — This

figure illustrates the impact (both professional

and support) of technological modifications on

baseline productivity for each key product (determined from interview results, the new key product

flow diagrams, and the data provided in Appendix E).

When computed, this figure is reflected on each new

key product flow diagram.

Productivity Improvements to be Achieved Through

Technological Modifications — This figure indicates

the percentage improvement projected through implementation of technological modifications.

Projected Total Hours to Prepare Key Products as

a Result of the System Design Model — This figure

illustrates the total impact of organizational, procedural, and technological modifications on baseline

productivity for each key product. When computed,

this figure is reflected on each new key product flow

diagram. Total hours are divided into professional

and support contributions for subsequent use in the

cost/benefit analysis.

Productivity Improvements to be Achieved Through the

System Design Model — This figure indicated the percentage of improvement projected through implementation of organizational, procedural, and technological

modi f icat ions

.

The level of effort totals and percentages for each key product are totaled together and averaged to obtain an estimate of

the overall projected productivity improvement to be achieved

through implementation of the office automation system, represented by each system design model.

Once the office automation system has been designed, the

study team should consider estimating projected productivity

39
improvements for the preparation phases of each key product.

This is especially important if the system design model contains many complex and interdependent components. To accomplish this effort, the aforementioned matrix is simply reconstructed for each preparation phase. Thus, if a decision

is subsequently reached to proceed with partial implementation

of a system design model, the study team will be able to inform

management of where the greatest degree of projected productivit

exists

.

3.4. Summary

This chapter of the guideline presented the methodology

associated with creating the proposed design for the office

automation system. The following points should be considered

during each stage of the effort:

Determining System Requirements

- Requirements consider projected changes to the

baseline environment to better reflect conditions at the time of system implementation.

(3.2)

- Requirements must be feasible and significant.

(3.2)

Creation of a System Design Model

- Productivity improvements are achieved through

a series of organizational, procedural, and/or

technological modifications to the existing

key product preparation processes. (3.3)

The behavioral and staffing impacts of these

types of modifications must be considered prior

to developing the system design model. (3.3)

A system design model is prepared that

incorporates those modifications that will

potentially provide the most benefit in achieving

the system requirements. (3.3)

- A new set of key product flow diagrams are

prepared resulting from the system design

model and detailing the modifications to the

baseline preparation processes. (3.3)

- A matrix is prepared which indicates the

projected productivity improvements to be

achieved for each key product. (3.3)

40
4. DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE

OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM

4.1. Int roduct ion

This chapter of the guideline presents the methodology

for developing functional specifications for each equipment

type incorporated in the system design model. These specifications are expressed in functional terms to permit competitive

bidding by numerous equipment vendors. Specifications are

statements of required equipment capabilities and answer the

question, "What must the equipment do?" Functional specifications are made up of individual support characteristics

which specify a desired feature and/or capability. Thus,

the study team first defines the support characteristics and

then groups them into functional specifications for each

equipment type. (Exhibit 7 presents an example.) In this way,

vendors will be encouraged to offer alternative means for

satisfying the specifications. The study team is also able

to determine the feasibility of the specifications and

more accurately construct a representative equipment configuration for the subsequent assessment of cost justification.

4.2. Developing Functional Specifications

Functional specifications for office automation equipment

are developed from two sources. First, the previously created

system design model and new key product flow diagrams pinpoint

the generic types of equipment (e.g., dictation, word processing, facsimile) to be used in the office automation system.

Second, the baseline office productivity profile identifies

the types of work performed, complexity of work, workloads,

and work patterns. Using these sources, the study team proposes support characteristics for each proposed equipment

type. There is no limit to the number of support characteristics that can be initially proposed. The study team may

decide to consider such characteristics as speed, simultaneity, print quality, disk space, etc. The primary consideration is the projected need of the characteristics as determined through examinations of the baseline productivity profile, the new key product flow diagrams, and the system design

model. Consider the following example:

Based on the observation of a significant quantity of

unproductive staff time due to uncompleted telephone

calls, the study team determines that the use of communicating terminals will aid in professional productivity

improvement and incorporates them into the system design

model. The baseline productivity profile reveals

that the support staff for these professionals are normally engaged in activities causing them to be away

from their desks at intermittent time intervals during

41
42
the normal workday. To make the best use of the

proposed communicating terminals, the study team

determines that a support characteristic for this

equipment is the ability to permit the unattended

receipt and storage of transmitted material. Other

support characteristics are similarly developed

and together represent the proposed functional

specifications for the communicating terminals.

4.3. Examination of Functional Feasibility

After the proposed functional specifications are developed, the study team validates their feasibility in terms

of potential vendor responses. Before finalizing these

specifications, an assessment is made to ensure that they

are achievable, presently available, and demonstrable.

Caution is continuously exercised during this assessment

so as not to narrow available sources to one vendor when

possible. To assist the team in this effort, office automation periodicals and vendor brochures are referenced.

Representative reference materials are included in Appendix

E, Bibliography of Sources of Office Automation Information.

The study team also attempts to attend vendor demonstrations

of different equipments and arrange visits to organizations

presently using similar equipment to that proposed in the

system design model.

A primary purpose of these visits is to identify

equipment limitations that will impact the feasibility of

including certain features in the specifications. For example, one type of limitation arises when there is a support

characteristic for simultaneity. As more equipment features

are specified to perform simultaneously, the number of

available equipment vendors diminishes. This condition

often occurs in the case of integrated word and data

processing systems. Therefore, the study team reviews

each support characteristic and makes a determination of its

benefits and drawbacks before preparing the final set of

functional specifications.

4.4. Preparation of a Representative Configuration

After the functional specifications are developed,

the study team constructs a representative configuration of

all proposed equipment types in the system design model to

determine the required number of units and their estimated

average purchase costs. Information regarding the required

number of units is derived from the system design model, the

new key product flow diagrams, and the baseline productivity

profile. For example, if the system design model indicates

that an OCR input reader will be used to support the production

phase of many key products, there will be a corresponding

effect on the number of word processors required for product production because word processors will not be used

43
for first draft input. This number is determined by identifying the following types of information from the baseline data: document length, percentage of revision, and

timing of input. The number of required units for other

equipment types is similarly determined and together become the representative configuration.

The estimated average purchase cost for these units

is calculated through a review of the previously indicated

office automation periodicals, vendor brochures and the

GSA schedule. The study team obtains estimated costs from

as many applicable vendors as possible. Purchase costs are

used because of their uniform definition among vendors. The

terms associated with lease and rental costs vary significantly

from vendor to vendor and are difficult to compare. These

estimates are averaged for each equipment type and totaled

to construct an estimated configuration cost.

To increase the value of these estimates, the study

team should organize the configuration costs by preparation

phase. Once these efforts are completed, the team may

begin to assess the cost justification of implementing the

office automation system.

4.5. Summary

This chapter of the guideline presented the methodology

associated with developing the functional specifications for

the proposed office automation system. The following points

should be considered during each stage of the effort:

Developing Functional Specifications

- Functional specifications for the office

automation equipment are derived from the

system design model, the new key product

flow diagrams, and the baseline productivity

profile. (Section 4.2)

- Support characteristics are proposed for each

equipment type. (4.2)

- There is no limit to the number of support characteristics that can be proposed for each functional specification. (4.2)

Examination of Functional Feasibility

The study team must ensure that the proposed

functional specifications for each equipment type are achievable, presently available,

and demonstrable by at least one vendor.

(4.3)

44
- Caution is continuously exercised in

assessing the specifications so as not

to narrow available sources to one vendor,

when possible. (4.3)

- Equipment limitations are considered when

assessing the functional feasibility of

each equipment type. (4.3)

Preparation of a Representative Configuration

- A representative configuration of all proposed equipment types in the system design

model is constructed to determine the

required number of units and their estimated average costs. (4.4)

- The estimated average purchase costs for

these units are calculated through a review of office automation periodicals

vendor brochures, and the GSA schedule.

(4.4)

45
5. ASSESSING THE COST

THE OFFICE

JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTING

AUTOMATION SYSTEM

5.1. Introduction

This chapter of the guideline presents the methodology

for performing a cost/benefit analysis to assess the practicality of implementing the office automation system.

In simple terms, cost/benefit analysis consists of identifying and quantifying all system costs and all systems benefits (cost savings or avoidances) to determine if positive net

benefits have been achieved and to what magnitude. Organizational management can reach an intelligent decision on

whether or not to proceed with full implementation of the

office automation system, or an incremental implementation

of either a portion of the study area or a particular phase

(i.e. input, production, output, distribution) of the key

product preparation process, based on a prioritization of

alternatives in terms of the net benefits.

Positive net benefits are clearly obtained if use of the

automated system results in the same volume of key products at

lower cost or a greater volume of key products at the same cost.

Positive net benefits are also obtained if a greater volume of

key products is produced for incrementally less cost (i.e., the

unit cost for the key products is reduced, but not the total

cost) and if the additional quantities of key products produced

have a value to the organization greater than the incremental

cost to produce them. (In some organizations there may be no

incremental value to increased quantities of key products).

Finally, there may be positive net benefits even if none of the

preceeding conditions hold, if there is an improvement in the

quality of the key products that can be assigned a value. The

study team must realize that the assignment of value to incremental volume or qualitative improvement of key products can be

a difficult exercise, requiring a thorough examination of the

program or service outputs associated with these products.

The data used in performing the cost/benefit analysis are

derived from two sources. The representative equipment configuration (Section 4.4) serves as the basis for determining

system cost estimates, and the projected productivity improvements (Section 3.3) serve as the basis for estimating annual

system cost savings (i.e., benefits). Cost justification is

assessed by projecting these estimates over a period of time

against the projected costs associated with retaining the

baseline system.

46
Where there are multiple alternatives or where an alternative system can be implemented in stages, each alternative or

stage should be analyzed separately so that they can be prioritized. This is complicated by the possibility of a synergistic

effect among different components. The study team must use judgment in selecting the best combinations of system components to

be analyzed.

5.2. Elements of System Cost

As a first step in performing the cost/benefit analysis,

the study team identifies all one-time and recurring cost elements associated with system implementation. One-time costs

include those for system development and implementation. Recurring costs relate to staff efforts required for key product

preparation and expenses associated with ongoing use of the

new automated equipment. These elements, when compiled, are

used by the study team to prepare their cost projections for

the office automation system.

One-time costs are computed based on the previously prepared estimates for the representative equipment configuration. In addition to the equipment purchase cost, other

potential one-time costs include such items as consultant

fees, internal analysis efforts, media conversion charges,

programming fees, packaged software, office space, initial

training time, and initial training materials. The study

team lists all of the relevant cost items and computes estimates for each, relying on information provided from sources

within the organization (e.g.. Data Processing Department),

vendors, and professional service firms.

Recurring costs include two major components. The first

component is the periodic costs of professional and support

efforts required for key product preparation. Baseline data

for key products were previously assembled per the instructions

provided in Section 2.3 of this guideline. Labor costs typically

represent the major cost component of an office automation system,

and should include all applicable personnel costs with fringe

benefits. The second component includes those projected expenses

resulting from system implementation such as equipment maintenance,

insurance, training materials, and supplies. The study team lists

all of the relevant recurring cost items and computes estimates

for each relying on information provided by equipment vendors and

supply firms.

5.3. Elements of System Benefit

The primary factors considered in the determination of

system benefit are the projected productivity improvements to

be achieved as a result of system implementation and their

translation into estimated annual cost savings.

47
The previously collected baseline data reflect the existing annual key product preparation efforts and costs. These

were calculated during the key product analysis (Section 2.3).

During development of the system design model, the study team

performed a productivity analysis to consider its quantitative

impact on required key product preparation efforts (Section

3.3). A matrix was constructed which summarized the projected

improvements to be achieved through organizational, procedural,

and technological modifications.

Using these previously assembled data, the study team

estimates the new key product preparation staff costs, assuming

system implementation. This is accomplished by multiplying the

hourly labor rates for professional and support staff (Section

2.3) by the new levels of effort required to prepare key products

The difference between the baseline preparation and new preparation costs is the estimated annual cost savings to be achieved

as a result of system implementation.

These projected savings represent a pool of labor expense

that can be managed in different ways. It can be converted to

cash savings through staff reduction; it can be applied to

other activities or to a qualitative improvement in the key

products; or it can be applied to improving the quality of

work life in the organization. Selection of the proper mix of

these alternative uses for the labor saved through improved

productivity is the prerogative of agency management.

5.4. Assessment of Cost/Benefit

The assessment of cost/benefit involves life-cycle financial projections to compare the net costs of the office

automation system to those associated with retaining the

baseline system. In preparing for this effort, the study

team must have completed the baseline profile, prepared

estimates of new system costs, and calculated the estimated

productivity improvement cost savings to be achieved through

system implementation.

Using these data, the study team prepares a matrix

(Exhibit 8 presents an example) and first projects the baseline cost of key product preparation, assuming the automated

system is not implemented. (Five years is a recommended

projection period, although organizational considerations

may dictate otherwise.) When developing this projection,

recognition must be given to changes in the baseline environment (e.g., workload increases, staff additions), as well as inflation. The completed projection represents a base of

comparison for assessing the cost justification of the office

automation system.

A second projection is prepared to estimate the gross

yearly costs of key product preparation, assuming system

implementation. The previously estimated baseline costs are

48
O o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o

** *• *• *- o o CM 00 LO

'J (N

</> o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 CO CO o CO

*• CO CN in cr*

n (Nl

n CN

</> </> </> o o o O o o o o o o o o o o 1 o * *• ID CO 00 CN CO n CM CO (M

<o- </> </> o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 o ** CO CN CO CN CN IT) I (N CN ro (N

</> <0- </> o o o O o O o o o o 1 CM CM O CM r CO CN ID

CM CN

m CN

t/v </> o o o o O o O O o o o o o o O o o o o o o o O o o o 00

CN CN ro

</> CO- </> 1 C 0 <u CO 0 4-)

4-1

u -p 1 •H 1 4-)U

4-1 0 » +J Q<

w

g 0 4-1 0 1 10 3 M St- w 0 •H 0) w u (0 »-l E 0 T) 0 T) C 0 o 4-1 C 4J u CM H O 0 C U 0 0 0 o - 1 0) 0 U -H d CM -p (1) a^ 0 >1 a, T! >1 P ft -rH 0) On -P d) TD C c c C 0 0) 0) 4-1 C 4-1 c (0 c 0 0 0) 0 H ^ 4J •H <D to •H >1 i4 •H U -H B U B a, (C > e tT> (1) >-l rH 0) (0 1-1 a +J Cn u w U 0) w in e •H C ,ii ft! to

0) ^: cn (U (0

H Q> 4->

d 4->

w 4-> P -rH 4-1 > H ft 4J

to

w >1 )-l

p x:

W 0 w 0 o w P U 0 > 4-1 0 to

(0 0) 10 4-> o (D >i 3 0 CO 3 u ID >H 0 0 Q( u o u Ph (0 u u ft to Z ft U • • • • • • • • 0

<D •H C +J H 4J (0 1—1 c 6

0) e <u 0 e

(0 <u E 4-> (U

(0 4-) 3 4-1 a w i-H < U) >1 >1 c w e CO H H o

ITJ •r4 P tM

0)

O

Q

to

ttj Q Ci. w

'H

Q

Q *H

•>>

Q)

52

Q o

CO^ 'O

tj

M (-• W

'"^ 0

(Uu

Q)

c:c

•H

_u

4-1 % 0 B

<0 0

to 4-1 to

to 4-1 (D to U (U 0

0) )-l

u c •H3 4J

to

C

H <D 0) U e

ft c W -H

-H •H 3 u CJ' f-i IP 0) x: Ip

(0 c

U-l

p o

in to •H

10 4-1

4-1 iH (0

to 10 e c 0

rH o 4-1 10 rH 3 C 4-1 (0 0H ^ <U

4-1 0

-H <0 •H n Ip 0 IP

sC 2 o

CN

n

49
again indicated for each projection year. The estimated

equipment costs are amortized over the projection period

and added to the estimated baseline costs. The recurring

new system costs (e.g., maintenance, materials and supplies)

are also included in the above totals. Finally, the remaining

one-time costs (e.g., consultants, initial training) are

added to the first projection year total.

To obtain the net yearly costs of key product preparation, the study team indicates the estimated annual productivity improvement cost savings to be achieved as a result

of system implementation. This savings is subtracted from

the gross yearly costs for each projection year. These net

yearly key product preparation costs are totaled and compared

to the projected costs of retaining the baseline system.

In reviewing these comparisons, the study team notes if

there are significant differences in the timing of the cash

flows for the current and proposed systems. If significant

differences exist, a discounted cash flow analysis is performed

to determine the present value of both projections. This

analysis permits a comparison of present and future costs by

adjusting for the time value of money. For example, the present

value of $100 to be expended one year from today is approximately

$90, assuming a 10% interest rate. In general, the present

value of $N to be expended Y years in the future, assumming an

interest or "Discount" rate of P percent is N(1-P)Y. Once

this same method of analysis is completed for the baseline and

office automation cost projections, the yearly estimates are

again totaled and compared.

5.5. Judging the Cost/Benefit Analysis Results

The study team notes one of three results from the

cost/benefit analysis. If the net total projected costs of

the office automation system are less than the total costs

of retaining the baseline system, office automation is cost

justified because the key products can be prepared with fewer

hours of key product contributor effort. Hence, these contributors will be able to expend an increased amount of time on

other work activities or prepare more key products if there

is an increase in work volume, or it may be possible to reduce

the number of contributors.

If the net total projected costs of the office automation

system are approximately equal to those of retaining the baseline

system, the cost justification for office automation may still

exist for those organizations where key product workloads are

rapidly increasing. This is because office automation may, for

no additional cost, handle increasing workloads better than the

baseline system.

50
It may be the case that multiple alternative systems yield

one or both of these results. Faced with such an abundance of

riches, the study team may proceed to select among these alternatives by ranking the qualitative improvements they yield in

terms of the perceived benefit to the organization. These qualitative benefits need not be assigned a value, since the system

has already been justified.

If, in the third possible result, the cost/benefit assessment indicates that key product preparation costs will be

greater with the office automation system than with the baseline

system, office automation is cost justified only if the key

product workload is increasing and the quantified value of

this increasing product workload exceeds the increased costs

of the automated system, or if there are qualitative improvements

in the key products that can be assigned a value. The study

team must recognize that in many cases the quantification of

key product value is a difficult exercise, requiring a detailed

study of the organization's programs and services. Hence,

management may reach a decision not to proceed with system

implementation when only the third result is obtained.

To increase the utility of the cost/benefit analysis,

the study team should consider presenting the cost projections

by product preparation phase so that management can assess the

practicality of partial system implementation. This can be

accomplished only if the data previously collected throughout

the feasibility study have been organized accordingly. The

results for each phase will indicate to management where the

greatest degree of cost justification exists.

Finally, the study team should consider performing the

cost justification assessment assuming equipment lease or

rental, rather than purchase, especially for those organizations with limited capital budgets which nevertheless have

a demonstrated need for office automation.

5.6. Summary

This chapter of the guideline has presented the methodology

associated with assessing the cost justification for implementing the office automation system. The following points should

be considered during each stage of the effort:

Elements of System Cost

- The study team identifies all one-time and

recurring costs associated with system implementation. (Section 5.2)

51
- One-time costs are based on the previously

prepared estimates for the representative

equipment configuration. (5.2)

- Recurring costs relate to the required key

product contributor efforts as well as new

system cost items such as equipment maintenance, materials and supplies, etc. (5.2)

Elements of System Benefit

- System benefit refers to a translation of the

previously estimated productivity improvements

into estimated annual cost savings. (5.3)

- The difference between the baseline and new key

product preparation costs is the estimated

annual productivity improvement cost savings

to be achieved as a result of system implementation. (5.3)

Assessment of Cost/Benefit

- The study team prepares a matrix and projects

into the future the yearly costs of key product

preparation, assuming that the office automation system is not implemented. (5.4)

- A second projection is developed assuming

system implementation. This projection considers all system costs as well as the estimated

productivity improvement impacts. (5.4)

- The net total projected costs for the office

automation system is compared to the total

projected baseline system costs to assess

cost justification. (5.4)

Judging the Cost/Benefit Analysis Results

- If the net total projected costs of the automated system are less than those of retaining

the baseline system, office automation is cost

justified because the key products can be prepared with fewer hours of key product contributor effort. (5.5)

- If the net total projected costs of the automated system are approximately equal to those

of the baseline system, office automation may

be cost justified because increased workloads

may be handled better than in the baseline

system at no additional cost. (5.5)

52
If the net total projected costs of the automated system are greater than those of retaining

the baseline system, cost justification may

occur only if the quantified value of increased

key product workloads exceeds the increased

costs of implementing the automated system or if

qualitative benefits result that can be valued.

(5.5)

The utility of the cost/benefit analysis can be

increased if the cost projections are presented

in terms of product preparation phases. (5.5)

53
6. CONDUCTING POST- IMPLEMENTATION AUDITS

OF THE OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM

6.1. Int roduct ion

This chapter of the guideline presents the methodology

for performing post-implementation audits of the office

automation system. The primary audit objective is to compare

projected office productivity (measured per the instructions

provided in Chapter 3) to the actual productivity realized

through system implementation. The post-implementation

audit report, resulting from these efforts, will include

recommendations to management for either proceeding with

ongoing operations, fine-tuning the system to achieve the

desired results, or totally redesigning the system. In any

case, a commitment must be made to continually stimulate

productivity improvements relating to key product preparation.

A secondary objective of post-implementation audits is to

build up an agency data base on the productivity improvements

realized through the application of various different technologies in office systems. With the exception of simple word

processing, reliable data on productivity improvements to be

expected from different technologies is lacking. By carefully

collecting data on the agency's own experience, future office

automation efforts can be planned with higher confidence in

the results. These results can also be shared with other

agencies who may be planning similar projects.

Management support must be forthcoming if the primary

audit objective is to be achieved. This support should

take the form of a commitment to provide adequate staff and

time resources to the audit efforts. The required resources

vary depending on organizational size and complexity.

An audit team ideally composed of different individuals

than those who participated in the initial feasibility study

is established. These individuals are less likely

than the original study team members to have any preconceived biases towards the audit results. Team members must

understand their responsibilities and duties during the

audit. These encompass the collection and analysis of new

productivity data to compare against the original baseline

data.

A schedule of periodic audits is developed to determine if the projected system requirements are being realized. These requirements resulted from both the initial

senior management interviews and baseline results. They

considered organizational changes in products, services,

programs, and/or responses.

A plan for conducting post-implementation audits should

be incorporated into the established productivity improvement

54
program of the organization, if such a program exists. This

blending will provide the resources for ongoing postimplementation monitoring and support and serve to mesh

the audit activity into the overall organizational structure.

Incorporation should not be attempted, however, if it necessitates substantial modification of the suggested audit

procedure. The benefits to be gained through incorporation

must outweigh any potential drawbacks resulting from the

differing procedures.

The standard procedure for performing post-implementation audits is as follows: productivity data are collected

and analyzed in the same format as that which was prepared

during the original baseline study; these audit results are

compared to the productivity projections to determine if the

system requirements are being achieved; significant differences between expected and actual results are identified,

researched, and explained; finally, suggested modifications

to improve system effectiveness in relation to the stated

requirements are recommended to management.

As a result of this audit, management may decide to take

further action towards improving the office automation system.

These actions could involve procedural changes pertaining to

system use, acquisition of additional or more enhanced equipment, or implementing the next phase of the system, assuming

a partial implementation schedule. The purpose of such actions, in all cases, is to correct existing problems or make

an effective system even better.

6.2. Timing of Post-Implementation Audits

When should an audit be conducted? The timing associated with performing an audit is an important factor contributing to valid results. If the audit is performed too soon

after implementation, meaningful results will not be achieved

because of inadequate system break-in time. To realistically

determine system effectiveness, the first post-implementation

audit should normally occur after the system has been fully

operational for a significant period of time (possibly as great

as one year). The audit team considers the following types

of factors when determining the length of this period:

System Size — Larger systems normally include

more numerous st af f /mach ine interfaces than

smaller systems. This creates a need for ongoing clarifications of staff duties and equipment

capabilities during the initial implementation

period

.

System Complexity -- The degree of change associated with key product preparation, work procedures, and the general office environment normally

indicates system complexity. Complexity is directly

55
related to the staff learning curves for using

the new system.

Number of System Users — Because all staff must

become familiar with the new equipment and procedures, break-in time is also dependent on the

number of system users.

Other factors such as key product preparation cycles and staff

vacations vary from organization to organization but must be

addressed by the audit team on an equal basis as those cited

above.

Vendors can often be of assistance in determining the

appropriate system break-in period by providing statistics on

average learning curves, user capacity, etc., for their

specific equipment. This information should be used with

caution, however, because of its source and should not be

relied upon exclusively. Other organizations that are using

similar equipment can also be of assistance and should be

contacted especially for the purpose of validating vendor

claims. Information on their previous experiences can be

used to identify potential implementation issues, claims, and

solut ions

.

Once the system break-in factors have been considered

and evaluated, a schedule of post-implementation audits is

developed by the audit team.

6.3. Office Automation Audit Activities

Several methods are used to collect level of effort

and cost data on automated operations. Key products analyzed

during the baseline study efforts (Section 2.3) are reexamined.

New key product flow diagrams (Section 3.3) are modified

to reflect any key product preparation changes that occurred as

a result of system implementation. An office work analysis

is performed in the same manner as during the initial feasibility study. Once these activities have been performed,

the audit team is prepared to seek answers to the following

questions:

Have the previously determined system requirements been achieved?

Is the office automation equipment helping to

achieve the expected results?

The system requirements form the basis for comparing

audit results with initial study expectations. The actual

benefits of the office automation system are determined by

the system's ability to achieve or surpass these requirements.

Because the office automation system may have been implemented

differently from the system design model, all system requirements

56
may not be achieved. Factors to be considered when assessing

these differences include the actual use and performance of

the office automation equipment, the administrative procedures

associated with key product preparation, the behavior of the

staff affected by the system, the previously collected baseline

data, and the audit procedure itself. Once the reasons for

ineffectiveness are identified, the audit team begins to

determine corrective actions which will enable the system

to achieve its requirements.

The data collection techniques for the post-implementation

audit are similar to those followed during the orginial baseline study. There are differences, however, within each

stage of the process. During the performance of preliminary

study activities, the audit team should consider the following

modifications

:

If the original study team is intact, there is

little need to replicate the literature and organizational research. If a new team has been

created, the members perform the initial

research as well as become familiar with the

study methodology presented in this guideline.

Senior management interviews focus on the same

key products that were previously identified and

affected by the automated system. The study team

obtains comments from the managers regarding

their perception of system benefits and drawbacks

resulting from automation. New productivity

goals indicated by the managers can serve as the

basis for determining revised system requirements

since they will identify specific areas in need

of improvement. Those key products no longer prepared, or those merged with other key products are

defined, described, and addressed in relationship

to the baseline profile.

During the performance of the key product analysis , the

audit team should consider the following modifications:

Previously prepared key product flow diagrams are

updated as required identifying processing points,

supporting equipment, and procedural/organizational

changes resulting from the implementation.

The impact of the functional specifications on equipment performance are discussed with the key product

contributors to determine their actual contribution

to improved productivity. Comments are solicited

regarding: the adequacy of specifications to facilitate expected results; suggestions for additional

specifications to further impact productivity;

57
the availability of these features, and the cost

effectiveness of including them in the system.

There are no differences between the original baseline study efforts and the audit activities involved for performing the office work analys is . Once the data collection effort is completed, the audit

team performs a comparison of pre-implementat ion expectations

and post-implementation results. The comparison reveals

whether or not the system requirements are being achieved.

Several factors are considered in this comparison:

There is a direct relationship between key

product preparation efforts and successful

achievement of the system requirements. A

key product matrix is prepared comparing projected and actual levels of effort and cost

required within the office automation system.

If the actual levels of effort are significantly greater than the projected expectations,

additional interviews with key product contributors are necessary to ascertain the reasons

for this condition. If these interviews prove

unproductive, an investigation of both the baseline and audit data is warranted.

The support requirements incorporated as features of the office automation equipment are

examined in terms of their individual benefit.

The audit team ascertains the degree of benefit,

the reasons behind actual performance, and the

available alternatives for increasing these

benefits. This information is obtained through

interviews with key product contributors or an investigation of baseline and audit data.

Staff and equipment performance is considered

on a product-by-product basis. The audit team

identifies specific areas of concern in achieving the previously determined system requirements.

As a result of this exercise, a set of alternative

strategies for improving the system is determined

and/or new system requirements established.

A summary matrix of office work analysis data is

prepared comparing the baseline and audit results.

The purpose of this matrix is to graphically illustrate changes in efforts and costs expended on

various activities as a result of system implementation. Factors included in the matrix replicate those examined during the baseline study.

If a comparison of these factors does not indicate

58
beneficial change, the reasons are identified and

evaluated

.

All conclusions reached from the above comparisons

form the basis for the audit team's report to organizational

management. New recommendations concerning further improvements to the office automation system are also included.

These recommendations are drawn from the conclusions reached

as a result of the post-implementation audit. The quantitative

effect of these recommendations are clearly identified for

review by management personnel. Summarizing, the audit

effort, once completed, provides organizational management

with a full assessment of system status regarding productivity

improvement and potential future enhancements to effect even

greater productivity.

6.4. Summary

This chapter of the guideline presented the methodology associated with post-implementation audits of the office

automation system. The following points should be considered

during each stage of the effort:

Timing of Post-Implementation Audits

- To realistically ascertain system effectiveness, the first post-implementation audit

will occur after the system has been fully

operational for a significant period of

time. (Section 6.2)

- The determination of adequate break-in

time is dependent on several factors including system size, complexity, and number of

users. (6.2)

- Vendors and other users of similar equipment

can be of assistance in determining adequate

break-in time for the office automation

system. (6.2)

Office Automation Audit Activities

- The audit team collects level of effort and

cost data on automated operations to compare

against the baseline data regarding key product preparation. (6.3)

- The procedures followed during the initial

feasibility study are, with a few differences,

employed during the performance of post-implementation audits. (6.3)

59
The comparison between pre-implementat ion

expectations and post-implementation results

reveals whether or not the system requirements are being achieved. (6.3)

All conclusions reached from the above comparisons form the basis for the audit team's

report to organizational management. (6.3)

New recommendations concerning further produ

tivity improvements to be achieved through

office automation are also presented in the

audit report. (6.3)

60
7. SUMMARY ADVICE

This guideline presented a structured approach for

determining the feasibility and practicality of implementing

(or expanding) office automation systems to effect productivity improvements in Federal agencies. The study methodology

entailed the performance of five major activities.

These activities are complex, yet can be successfully

accomplished if caution is continually exercised during the

course of the study. The following paragraphs are aimed

towards assisting the users of this guideline by providing

summary reminders of the key cautionary points discussed in

the previous chapters. The advice is organized by chapter/

section title so that the reader may refer back in the guideline for a more detailed discussion.

DETERMINING BASELINE OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY (Chapter 2)

Preliminary Study Activities (2.2) — Team member

selection is of critical importance to successful

completion of the study effort. If individuals

possessing the necessary experience are not available

within the organization to participate in the effort,

it is advisable to seek outside assistance.

The study scope can be limited to either a few predetermined key products, a small sector of the organization, and/or to specific product preparation phases.

The scope of the effort should be related to either

the estimated size of the office automation procurement budget or to the realistic availability of staff

resources.

A "product" is defined as a "unit" of regularly

produced written material contributed to by one or

more individuals requiring significant amounts of

time and cost. Appendix A contains a "Typical List

of Products" to help guide the study team in product

identification.

Key products (resulting from the senior manager interviews and subject to further examination) should

represent the performance of major office activities

and would appear to benefit from the introduction of

one or more types of office automation equipment.

If the study area is large or composed of many functional groups, the data should be summarized by work

group, department, or similar functional unit and then

collected into an organizational summary. If the study

area is small, an organizational study only need be

prepared

.

61
Key Product Analysis (2.3) — After preliminary

level of estimates are provided by the key product contributors, the study team must decide which

activities require further investigation through

interviews

.

After completing the key product interviews, the

study team must decide whether an acceptable percent of response has been received from key

product contributors.

The study team must be aware that there are limits

to the usefulness and validity of the key product

analysis data.

While not required, the study team may find it

advantageous to examine data regarding the quality

of work being performed and the value of the key

products to the organization.

Office Work Analysis (2.4) — Data should be collected for ten working days, regardless of organizational size. Five days, however, is an acceptable minimum.

After completion of the data collection period,

the study team must decide whether an acceptable

percent of response has been received from both

professional and support staff.

In performing the follow-up interviews, a sample

should be drawn from both the professional and

support staffs.

Management should participate in determining those

productivity measures which appear to be meaningful

to the organization.

If a significant variance exists between the data

collected during the key product and office work

analyses, the reasons behind this variance must be

determined before proceeding with the study.

The study team must be aware that there are limits

to the usefulness and validity of the office work

analysis data.

DESIGNING THE OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM (Chapter 3)

Determining the System Requirements (3.2) — System requirements are statements of design intent and

answer the question "What is the system required to

do?"

62
They are derived by comparing baseline productivity to a set of productivity goals previously

identified during the senior manager interviews.

They are stated in quantitative terms to permit

comparative analyses of proposed productivity

improvements

.

They should reflect the projected status of the

organization at least two years in the future.

The proposed requirements are prioritized and

presented to organizational management for

approval and/or modification.

Creation of a System Design D4odel (3.3) — The

system design model is a listing of productivity

improvement options that can potentially improve

the baseline key product preparation processes.

Productivity improvement comes from organizational,

procedural, and technological sources.

The behavioral and staffing impacts of each productivity improvement source must be considered.

The model is developed by first reviewing the

results of the key product analysis and the areas

of potential productivity improvement that were

then identified for each individual key product.

From these "working papers," a model for all key

products is prepared that incorporates only those

modifications that will significantly affect the

achievement of the system requirements.

A new set of key product flow diagrams are prepared to identify the placement of potential productivity improvements to baseline key product

preparation. All components of the system design

model are employed, but not necessarily within

each key product flow.

A matrix is prepared to indicate the projected

quantitative productivity improvements to be

achieved for each key product.

The technology assessment presented in Appendix E

can be used to estimate the amount of potential

productivity improvements to be achieved as a result of technological modifications. However,

this information needs to be continually researched

and updated to account for new technological developments which may offer further productivity

improvement

.

63
To estimate the potential productivity improvement to be achieved as a result of organizational

and procedural modifications, the study team

examines the baseline level of effort expended in

performing each key product activity. The study

team uses its best judgment in determining what

steps will be eliminated as a result of the modifications. Productivity improvement (in terms of

reducing the level of effort) is then estimated

and included in the matrix.

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE AUTOMATION

SYSTEM (Chapter 4)

Developing Functional Specification (4.2) — Specifications are expressed in functional terms to permit competitive bidding by numerous equipment

vendors

.

They are made up of individual support characteristics which specify a desired feature and/or

capabil ity

.

They are derived from two sources. First, the

previously created system design model and new key

product flow diagrams pinpoint the generic types of

equipment to be used in the office automation system. Second, the baseline office productivity profile identifies the types of work performed, complexity of work, workloads, and work patterns.

The study team first defines the support characteristics and then groups them into functional specifications for each equipment type.

There is no limit to the number of support characteristics that can be initially proposed for each

functional specification.

Examination of Functional Feasibility (4.3) — The

study team must ensure that the proposed functional

specifications for each equipment type are achieved,

presently available, and demonstrable by at least

one vendor.

Caution is continually exercised so as not to narrow

available sources to one vendor, when possible.

The limitations of each equipment type are considered

by referencing office automation periodicals and brochures, attending vendor demonstrations, and visiting

other organizations using similar equipment.

64
Each support characteristic is reviewed in terms of

its benefits and drawbacks before preparing the final

set of functional specifications.

Preparation of a Representative Configuration (4.4) —

Information regarding the required number of units is

derived from the system design model, the new key

product flow diagrams, and the baseline productivity

prof ile

.

The estimated average purchase costs for these units

are calculated through a review of the previously

indicated office automation periodicals, vendor

brochures, and the GSA schedule.

Purchase costs are used because of their uniform

definition among vendors. The terms associated

with lease and rental costs vary significantly from

vendor to vendor and are difficult to compare.

The cost estimates are averaged for each equipment

type and totaled to construct an estimated configuration cost.

ASSESSING THE COST JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTING THE OFFICE

AUTOMATION SYSTEM (Chapter 5

Elements of System Cost (5.2) — The study team identifies all one-time and recurring costs associated

with implementing the office automation system.

One-time costs include such items as equipment,

implementation analysis, programming, training.

Recurring costs include such items as equipment,

maintenence, materials and supplies, required key

product contributor efforts.

Elements of System Benefit (5.3) — System benefit

refers to a translation of the previously estimated

productivity improvements into estimated annual cost

savings.

The difference between the baseline and new key

product preparation costs is the estimated annual

productivity improvement cost savings to be achieved

as a result of system implementation.

Assessment of Cost Benefit (5.4) — A matrix is prepared that projects into the future the yearly costs

of key product preparation, assuming that the office

automation system is not implemented.

65
A second projection is developed assuming system

implementation and considers all system costs as well

as the estimated productivity improvement impacts.

The net total projected costs for the office automation systems are compared to the total projected

baseline system costs to assess cost justification.

If there are significant yearly differences between

the baseline system costs and the net costs of the

automated system, a discounted cash flow analysis

may be performed to determine the present value of

both projections.

Judging the Cost/Benefit Analysis Results (5.5) —

If the net total costs of the automated system are

less than those of retaining the baseline system,

office automation will result in an absolute cost

savings and is justifiable.

r If the automated and baseline system costs are

approximately equal, office automation may be cost

justified because increased workloads can be handled

at no additional cost.

If the automation costs are greater than the baseline costs, the system will be cost-justifiable only

if the quantified value of increased product workloads exceeds the cost of implementing the automated

system.

CONDUCTING POST-IMPLEMENTATION AUDITS OF THE OFFICE AUTOMATION

SYSTEM (Chapter 6)

Timing of Post-Implementation Audits (6.2) — The

first audits should occur after the system has been

fully operational for a significant period of time,

possibly as great as one year.

The determination of adequate break-in time is

dependent on several factors including system size,

complexity, and number of users.

Vendors and other users of similar equipment can be

of assistance in determining adequate break-in time.

Office Automation Audit Activities (6.3) — The primary audit objective is to compare projected office

productivity to the actual productivity realized

through implementation of the office automation

system.

An audit team should be established and ideally

composed of different individuals than those particcipated in the initial feasibility study. These

66
are less likely than the original study team members to

have any preconceived biases toward the audit results.

The procedures employed during the post-implementation

audits are similar to those followed during the initial

feasibility study, although there are modifications to

the data collection forms.

The comparison between pre-implementat ion expectations

and post-implementation results reveals whether or

not the system requirements are being achieved.

All conclusions reached from these comparisons form

the basis of the audit team report to organizational

management. The report recommends to either proceed

with ongoing operations, fine-tune the system to

achieve the desired results, or totally redesign the

system.

New recommendations concerning further productivity

improvements to be achieved through office automation

are also presented in the audit report.

Each chapter of the guideline should be thoroughly reviewed by the study team before embarking on any activity described

herein. Additionally, organizations should approach office

automation in a cautious, organized manner, understanding that

not all areas of the office are susceptible to automated

improvements

.

As a final caution, management must recognize that the value

of office automation improvements will be optimized only if the

newly available time of professional and support staffs are

directed toward new or additional activities designed to improve

organizational effectiveness. This is the challenge to organizations that are deciding to introduce office automation or any

other types of productivity improvement measures.

67
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

SAMPLE

TYPICAL LIST OF PRODUCTS

1. Correspondence

:

Letter

Memorandum

Message

2. Reports

:

Management

Trip

Technical

Incident

Project Status

Fiscal

Personnel

Weekly Activities

Material Deficiency

Training

Statement of Work (SOW)

Specifications

Procurement Plan

Program Management Directive

Program Management Plan

Letter Request

Sole Source Justification

Determination and Finding (D&F)

Invitation for Bid

Request for Proposal (RFP)

EEO Certification

Small Business Coordination

Pre-Award Survey

Model Contract

Change Order

Administrative Notice

Source Selection Plan

Annual Call for Estimate

Obligation Authority (AO)

Procurement Directive

Delivery Order

Cost Estimate

Independent Cost Analysis (ICA)

Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR)

Staff Meeting Agenda (and Report)

Action Item List

Configuration Change Status Report (CCSR)

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP)

Quarterly Resources Report

3. Documents

:

A-1
SAMPLE

System Safety Program Plan

Configuration Control Board Minutes

Data Management Report

Training Plan

Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)

Program Management System Checklist

Contract Management Systems Checklist

Military Construction Program Reporting

Site Survey Report

Environmental Assessment

Life-Cycle Cost Study

Phase-Out Plan

4 , Forms

:

5. Reviews/Briefings:

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Security Classification Guide

Inspection and Acceptance Document

Data Item Description

Personnel Action Request

Time Card

Work Order Request

Security Monitor

Printing Request

Position Description

Purchase Request

Report of Survey

Travel Request

Military Order

Business Strategy Panel Meeting

Quarterly Financial Review

Periodic Program Review

Program Management Review (PMR)

Executive Management Review (EMR)

Resources Utilization Committee (RUC)

Action

Financial Management Board Review

Division Advisory Group (DAG) Review

Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Meeting

Command or Senior Officer Briefing

Internal Management Review

6. Audiovisual Aids:

Vugraph

Briefing Text

Graphic Aid

35mm Slide

Briefing Board

A-2
APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Tasks

Planning - Formulating an idea to be expressed in written or

graphic form that lays out a method for achieving an end (e.g.,

scheduling)

.

Consult ing - Giving advice or exchanging opinions with colleagues (superiors, peers, or subordinates) to discuss or

consider a wider range of viewpoints. Consulting might be

accomplished by telephone, a meeting, or an individual faceto-face encounter.

Collecting Data - Assembling facts from various sources to use

in preparing documents or responses to inquiries.

Evaluating, Sorting, and Analyzing - Examining and judging material to assess its value.

Preparing Drafts - Transferring thoughts from one's mind into

another medium (usually paper) either with a writing tool or

by use of mechanical or electronic means.

Reviewing and Revising Drafts - Performing a critical evaluation

of work (yours or others) with the expected outcome of change

in format, grammer, or content.

Coordinating - Circulating a document or response to inquiry for

comment as to content or procedure. It is usually accomplished

by written annotation or telephone.

Obtaining Approvals - Requesting approval of a decision maker to

proceed with an action, document, or response to inquiry.

Disseminating - Dispensing material to a list of authorized recipi

ents

.

Maintaining Records - Assembling and holding materials in some

container in an orderly manner that assists in quick recovery.

For the professional, it may be a desk drawer, notebook, file

folder, or small container.

Functions

Typing - Preparing materials through use of a typewriter.

Dictating - Speaking for someone else to write down or for recordi

on some medium.

B-1
Transcribing - Copying from one medium to another or producing

typed material from dictation.

Filing - Arranging material (usually on paper) into a particular

order for future reference.

Duplicating - Making copies through use of a copier or duplicator.

Distributing - Sending or taking materials to authorized recepients

and filing areas.

Printing - Producing typed pages of previously input material.

Communicating - Using automated equipment to transmit materials to

remote location.

Data Processing - Inputting, processing, and/or outputting material

under the control of a stored program.

B-2
APPENDIX C

KEY PRODUCT ANALYSIS

o

J

<O

Eh

o

3o

K

O

chW

OSo

•s

COzo

O W M

a< Eh & >^ U

D Eh 2

CO D

COu

EH 3

01 0 O x:

OiOj D

c

OT m

>4 (U OQ a

>,

m

u3

Z 0

o D JZ M O llj

tr* >^ "DC

(0

0)a

>

J

< CO 2 Oi O D

l-H o

CO a: CO z

M o

CO o OS

OS u

Oi 04

J

>

CdiJ

Ui <

i<: z

CO o

< M

Eh COCOa

O

OS

Oi

2

O

2M

OjX

Eh

C3 M

a t3 z CO 2 o 2 M CO M 2 M Eh u

CO M Eh < CJ 2 M Eh o U o

M OS < CO 2 M OS

Eh CJ U M M 2 04 < CO 2 M a: EH

Eh 2 M J Eh 2 £ < U 04 CO M Eh M M M OS o <

Q Eh Q Q o, u Q

(N in vo r- 00

2

M

22

<

J

O4

O

zM

EhJ

CO2

O

u

<

Q

2

M

EhCJJ

J

o

CJ

2

M

EH<

J

C5zM

Eh

OSO

CO

EH

Q

O

Z

M

OS<

04

OS

a,

Eh

Cl, Q

ZM

COM

>

OS \csz

l-H sw

M

>Cd

OS

C-1
SAMPLE

Name

Date

Product

KEY PRODUCT INTERVIEW GUIDE

TASK QUESTION

1. Would you describe your work in accomplishing each task identified on the

worksheet?

ACTIVITY QUESTIONS

2. In performing the activity described on the worksheet, what inputs were required

from other people/ offices?

what from where how how long

(mail, etc.

)

C-2
SAMPLE

Which inputs listed in question #2 were critical for your continuing to progress

in this activity?

To what degree did you have to manipulate the inputs listed in question #2

to accomplish your activity?

heavy moderate light not at all

Did you experience any problems or delays in doing your work?

yes no

If yes, what was the cause and the result?

If clerical support type functions were performed by you, why?

C-3
SAMPLE

7. Can you estimate the extent to which you used the office equipment listed

below?

hours of use

typewriter

word processor

copier

telephone

facsimile

dictation equipment

other (explain: )

8. Do you maintain any files on the product?

yes no

If yeS/ for what purpose?

PRODUCT SUMMARY

9. Do you have any suggestions — organizational, procedural, or technological

for improvement of product preparation?

yes no

If yes, what and how would it help?

C-4
Date:

APPENDIX D

OFFICE WORK ANALYSIS

SAMPLE

PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Name Years in Present Position

Title Years with Organization

Office Full Time Part Time (#hrs

JOB CHARACTERISTICS

1. Was your workload during the study period:

lighter than normal

normal

heavier than normal

2. Are you now performing any administrative functions that could be

delegated to a secretary if the support were available?

typing posting information

proofreading preparing forms/longjiand

photocopying/collating math calculations

filing research

telephone coverage maintaining office

mail sorting/delivery business errands

composing letters, etc. using facsimile

taking dictation other (what?

3. Can you think of any repetitive activities you perform (e.g., recordkeeping, math computations, data analysis, etc.) that could be done more effectively using automated tools?

yes no

If yes, please describe.

D-1
SAMPLE

INFORMATION/DATA SOURCES

4. What percent of the information/data that you need during an average

week is produced by:

% your office

% other offices in your organization

% other government agencies (who? )

% other sources (who? )

100 %

In what format do you usually receive this information?

% computer printout

% handwritten

% typed

% other (explain:

100%

5. What percent of the information/data that you need during an average

week is existing information in your organization that you must collect

and reformat for your own use? %

6. To what extent do you have problems receiving the information in question 5 on a timely basis?

very often sometimes

often rarely

If problems, please describe

D-2
SAMPLE

LEVEL OF SECRETARIAL SUPPORT

7. Who provides most of your secretarial support?

my personal secretary

a secretary I share with others

several secretaries I share with others

no one, I do my own clerical work (SKIP TO QUESTION 14)

What is the name(s) of your secretary (ies)?

8. If you share secretaries, how many other professionals do they support

(excluding yourself)?

9. When the secretary is absent, how do you get your work done?

wait for secretary to return

request support elsewhere as favor

other (explain: )

10. When you are out of the office for a full day or more, how does your

secretary (ies) usually spend his or her time?

does work assigned by me

catches up on work that has backlogged

does what needs to be done

works for other people he or she regularly supports

assigned temporarily to another work group/department

do not know

11. Does your secretary get assistance when work gets backlogged?

yes no

If yes, how:

D-3
SAMPLE

12. How satisfied are you with the level of secretarial support provided:

very satisfied somewhat satisfied

satisfied not satisfied

13. What are the five most critical functions the administrative support staff

performs for you during an average week?

typing posting information

proofreading preparing forms/longhand

photocopying/collating math calculations

filing research

telephone coverage maintaining office

mail sorting/delivery business errands

composing letters, etc. using facsimile

taking dictation other (what? )

14. How would you describe your need for secretarial support?

steady peaks and valleys

If you checked peaks and valleys, when do peaks occur?

particular time(s) of day (why? )

particular day(s) of week (why? ) particular month(s) (why? )

unpredictable

DICTATION

15. During an average week, do you dictate?

yes no

If yes, you dictate to:

secretary (who:

dictation equipment

D-4
SAMPLE

16. What dociaments do you dictate?

1 page

2-5 pages

______

6-10 pages

over 10 pages

17. If you have access to dictation equipment, but do not use it, why?

18. Have you ever received dictation equipment training?

yes, from vendor no

yes, from other source (who?

If yes, was it helpful? yes no

19. Would you like to receive (additional) dictation training?

yes no

20. If you do not currently have access to dictation equipment, would you

like to use it?

yes no (why?

TYPING REQUIREMENTS

21. What are your total typing requirements during a week?

typical week heavy week

I-5 pages

6-10 pages

II-19 pages

20 or more pages

D-5
SAMPLE

22. What is the average number of typed pages in documents you generate

during the week?

1 4-9 20-40

2-3 10-19 over 40

23. What percent of the typed work you generate weekly consists of;

% original text

% standardized text

______ % columns of numbers (statistical)

% pre-printed forms fill-ins

% graphics/illustrations

% other (explain"

100 %

24. When you find secretarial errors in your typing, what usually happens?

use white-out is used

retype entire page

retype corrections on original page

write corrections by hand

other (explain

25. Is the level of typing support available to you adequate?

typical week heavy week

adequate

not adequate

If "not adequate", why?

D-6
SAMPLE

26. What percent of the work you submit for typing during an average week is:

% typed by you

% written completely in longhand

% dictated to a secretary

% dictated on equipment

% cut and pasted (including some longhand)

% computer generated

______ % extracted from previously typed materials

% other (explain:

100 %

27. If you type yourself either in draft or final form, why?

personal preference

hasten turnaround time

secretary not available

other (explain:

28. Do revisions cause problems in meeting typed material deadlines?

very often sometimes

often rarely

If often, why? )

29, How satisfied are you with the appearance of documents leaving the office?

very satisfied somewhat satisfied

satisfied not satisfied

If not satisfied, why? )

D-7
SAMPLE

30. For what percent of the work you submit for typing during an average week

do you assign priorities?

% high priority (inunediate attention)

% standard (a day or less)

% low (next several days)

% no priority assigned

100 %

Are your priorities usually met?

yes no

high priority

standard

low

FILING

31. What files do you regularly access?

active (regularly used by one or more individuals; contains

materials ralating to on-going activities

)

inactive (regularly used by one or more individuals; contains

archival records)

other (what?

32. Who does the initial filing?

active files inactive files

I do

other professionals

my secretary

other scretaries

D-8
SAMPLE

33. Who usually retrieves and returns materials to the files?

active files inactive files

1 do

other professionals

my secretary

other secretaries

34. How often do you use file materials during an average week?

active files inactive files

several times/day •

once a day

2 or 3 times/week

once a week or less

35. Is file access a problem?

yes no

If yes, why?

PHOTOCOPYING REQUIREMENTS

36. What percent of your photocopying during an average week is done by:

% you

% another professional

% secretarial staff

% duplication/print shop

% other (explain: )

100 %

D-9
SAMPLE

37. Approximately how many pages do you copy or have copied for you?

pages

typical week

heavy week

38. What is the total number of copies you usually make or have

made during a typical week? copies

39. How satisfied are you with the quality of photocopies? _____ very satisfied somewhat satisfied

satisfied not satisfied

DISTRIBUTION

40. How much of your work during an average week is distributed through:

% internal mail within building

% internal mail outside building

% hand-carried inside office

% hand-carried outside office

% U.S. Mail

% facsimile

% commercial Air Express

% other (how? )

100 %

41. On average, how long does it take for you to receive documents via

internal mail from others?

less than a half day

one day

two days

other (how long? ]

D-10
SAMPLE

42. Is the internal mail system responsive to your needs?

yes no

If no, why?

If no, how do you compensate?

facsimile

hand-carrying

other (what?

43. What materials do you usually not send via internal mail?

Why?

for review, coordination

for discussion

to hasten processing

other (explain:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.

D-1 1
SAMPLE

Date:

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE

Name Years in Present Position_

Title Years with Organization

Office Full Time Part Time (#hrs )

JOB CHARACTERISTICS

1. Was your workload during the study period:

lighter than normal

normal

heavier than normal

2. Can you think of any repetitive activities you perform (e.g«/ recordkeeping/

math computations, data analysis, etc.) that could be done more effectively

using automated tools?

yes no

If yes, please describe.

3. How many people do you regularly provide the following support to?

number of people

secretarial/administrative support

telephone coverage

Who is primary support provided to?

4. Do you feel the people you support are aware of how much work you have?

usually sometimes rarely

D-12
SAMPLE

What do you feel are the five most critical functions you perform

for the people you regularly support during an average week?

typing

photocopying/collating

filing

telephone coverage

mail sort/delivery

composing memos/letters

taking dictation

transcribing

posting information

preparing forms in longhand

doing math calculations

research

maintaining office

business errands

using facsimile

other (what?

How would you describe your workload?

steady peaks and valleys

If you checked peaks and valleys, when do peaks occur?

particular time(s) of day (why? )

particular day(s) of week (why? )

particular raonth(s) (why? )

unpredictable

Who usually prioritizes your work?

I do

person I primarily support

all the people I support

secretarial supervisor or head secretary

other (explain:

D-13
SAMPLE

8. If you receive assistance when your work gets backlogged, how are other

secretaries asked for help?

I don't get any assistance

I ask them

head secretary asks them

person(s) I support asks them

other (explain: )

9. How often does your work get backlogged to the extent that extra

assistance would be helpful?

very often (once a week or more)

often (several times a month)

occasionally (every few months)

rarely (several times a year)

10. When the people you work for are out of the office on business

for a full day or more, how do you usually spend you time?

I do work assigned by the people I regularly support

I catch up on work that has backlogged

I do what I feel needs to be done

I am assigned temporarily to another work group/department

11. Does someone else handle your work when you are on vacation or absent?

usually sometimes rarely

12. Do you maintain a procedures book detailing your secretarial

responsibilities?

yes no

yes no don't know

If you keep a procedure book,

could it be improved?

Do you follow it regularly?

Could another person use it

to do your work?

Does the person(s) you

support review it periodically?

D-14
SAMPLE

13. How many hours do you work overtime during a typical week?

hours

DICTATION

14. Do you take dictation?

yes no

If no, why?

Do you have access to transcription equipment?

yes no

If yes, do you use the transcription equipment?

yes no (why? )

What is your reaction to transcribing from equipment?

never used it like it dislike it

If you dislike, why?

TYPING

17. On what kind of equipment do you now do your typing?

(Check all that apply)

do not type

typewriter _____ word processor (manufacturer & model)

D-15
SAMPLE

18. What is your total typing output during a week?

typical week heavy week

I- 5 pages

6-10 pages

II- 19 pages

20 or more pages

19. What is the average number of pages in documents you typed during

a week?

1 4-9 20-40

2-3 10-19 over 40

20. What percent of your weekly typing consists of:

% original text

% standardized text

% columns of numbers (statistical)

% pre-printed forms fill-ins

% graphics/illustrations

% other (explain

100%

21. When you find typing errors in your work, what usually happens?

use white-out is used

retype entire page

retype corrections on original page

write corrections by hand

other (explain

D-16
SAMPLE

22. What percent of the work you type during an average week is submitted:

% written completely in longhand

% dictated to you

% transcribed

% cut and pasted (including some longhand)

% computer generated

% previously typed

% other (explain )

100%

23. For what percent of the work you type during an average week has a priority

been assigned?

% high priority (immediate attention)

% standard (a day or less)

% low (next several days)

% no priority assigned

100%

24. How satisfied are you with the appearance of documents you type when

they leave the office?

very satisfied somewhat satisfied

satisfied not satisfied

If not satisfied, why

25. How interested are you in using (or learning to use) a word processor?

very interested somewhat interested

interested not interested

D-17
SAMPLE

FILING

26. What files do you regularly access?

active (regularly used by one or more individuals; contains

materials relating to on-going activities)

inactive (regularly used by one or more individuals; contains

archival records)

27. Who does the initial filing?

active files inactive files

I do

professional(s) I support

other professionals

other secretaries _____

28. Who usually retrieves and returns materials to the files?

active files inactive files

1 do

professionaK s ) I support

other professionals

other secretaries _____

29. If you obtain and return materials, how often?

active files inactive files

several times a day

once a day

2 or 3 times/week

once a week or less

30. Is file access a problem?

yes no

If yes, why

D-18
SAMPLE

PHOTOCOPYING

31. Approximately how many pages do you copy?

pages

typical week

heavy week32. What is the total number of copies you usually make during a typical week? copies

33. How satisfied are you with the quality of photocopies you make?

very satisfied _____ somewhat satisfied

satisfied not satisfied

DISTRIBUTION

34. How much of your work during an average week is distributed through:

% internal mail within building

% internal mail outside building

% hand-carried inside office

% hand-carried outside office

% U.S. Mail

% facsimile

% commercial Air Express

% other (how?

100%

35. On the average, how long are the distribution lists you use?

I do not use distribution lists

1-6 addresses

7-10 addresses

over 10 addresses

D-19
SAMPLE

36. How often do you use your distribution lists?

3-4 times a week or more

1 or 2 times a week

once or twice a month

less than once a month

37. Do you hand-carry materials to other offices?

yes no

If yes, on the average how often and where?

38. Do you use facsimile equivalent?

yes no

If yes, on the average how many pages do you send and/or receive

each week?

pages sent pages received

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.

D-20
SAMPLE

WORD PROCESSOR SUGGESTED QUESTIONS

1. How many hours a week do you usually use the word processor?

# hours

2* How would you rate the ease of operating your automated equipment?

very easy

easy

difficultyvery difficult

3. Who trained you initially to use the word processor?

4. Do you keep a paper copy of materials stored on cards, cassettes, diskettes, or

discs?

always occasionally

usually rarely

If so, why?

5. If you have access to a word processor but do not use it, why?

D-21

APPENDIX E

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Descriptions of Product Preparation Phases

and Representative Equipment Types

A wide variety of office automation technologies are available for use in performing various functions. For the

purposes of this guideline, these technologies are categorized

into four phases of product preparation: input, production,

output, and distribution.

The input phase includes the conversion of ideas

or thoughts into complete and concise verbal or written communications. Representative equipment

includes

:

Dictation E(^uipment — Designed for local and/

or remote dictation. Originator accesses individual unit or central system via microphone,

hardwired handset, or telephone. If a centralized system is used, it may be configured to

handle from two or three to an unlimited number

of originators.

Electronic Typewriter with Optical Character

Recognition Font Capability — Aids the user

in the preparation of first draft text. Has an internal memory only and generally offers such

text features as automatic centering, decimal

tabulation, and automatic error correction.

OCR font allows text to be read into production

phase equipment for further processing.

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) — Reads

through a process of light-sensitive recognition,

specially prepared pages of text and translates

the copy into electronic impulses for storage on magnetic media. The media is used as input for

text editing on compatible word processing equipment or other types of production equipment. OCR

systems are usually stand-alone devices.

Personal (Professional) Terminals — Provides

the opportunity for the professional to directly

input data into or retrieve it from production-type

equipment. Data may be used for later processing

or text editing. The value to an organization is

totally dependent on the type of application.

E-1
The production phase consists of processing

or manipulating the ideas or thoughts created

and/or stored during the input phase. It may

include word processing or data processing.

Representative equipment includes:

- Blind Automatic Word Processor — Aids user

in the preparation of original typing and

limited text editing. Includes keyboard,

internal memory, and magnetic media storage/

retrieval capability (usually magnetic card

or tape). The printer unit is the same

as the keyboard unit.

- Stand-Alone Display Word Processor — Aids

secretary in the preparation of original

typing and extensive text editing. Some

have records/list processing capabilities.

Has keyboard, internal memory, and magnetic

media storage/retrieval capability. The

video display may be a one-or-two line

windov/ up to a full page CRT (cathode-ray-tube).

The magnetic media may take the form of

card, tape, fixed disk, or floppy disk

(diskette). The printer unit is the same

as the keyboard unit in the thin window equipment but is a separate unit on equipment with

CRTs.

Shared-Logic Word Processor — Aids user

in preparation of original typing and extensive text editing. Many have records/

list processing capabilities. Some are

user programmable and are capable of performing EDP-similar applications that can be

integrated with word processing. Includes

terminals, central processor (and/or controller), printers, and other peripherals.

Each terminal usually shares the word processing power, storage, and peripherals of

the central computer. Sometimes included

in this category are distributed logic

systems which may share peripherals and

often share storage, but have most computer

power (logic) distributed at the individual

operator stations.

Minicomputer — Aids user with the same

kinds of capabilities as a large computer,

but on a limited scale. Many have word processing packages and data processing programs that can be integrated. Sometimes

E-2
a distributed logic system is composed

of multiple minicomputers at the points

of need which connect to a large centralized data processor. Terminals may be

intelligent or dumb.

- Data Processing System — Aids user with the

execution of a programmed sequence of

operations upon data. Usually supports

many applications, e.g., payroll, inventory,

word processing, etc.

The output phase encompasses the generation

of an electronic, optical, or hard copy document.

The output phase may be difficult to distinguish from the production phase. A distinguishing

feature is the intended use of the output document. If the document is subject to further

manipulation or processing, production is still

in process. If it is to be distributed, production is complete. Representative eguipment

includes

:

- Word Processing Impact Printer — Types in final

copy guality at low speeds. Capable of producing carbon copies during printing. It is usually physically hardwired to the word processor.

- Word Processing Non-Impact Printer— Produces

draft-and/or final-copy guality at relatively

high speed. Usually, incapable of producing

carbon copies; however, it prints multiple

copies of a document on reguest. It may be

physically hardwired to the word processor

or a stand-alone unit which receives print

reguests and data via magnetic media and/or

communication lines.

- Data Processing Printer — Produces nonguality

copy at high speed. It may be a serial

(matrix) or line printer. Output is

usually all upper case; however, upper and

lower case capability is sometimes available.

It may be physically hardwired to the computer

or receive data via communication lines.

Photocomposer — Prepares finished, typesetter-guali ty copy which is ready for

printing. Text usually has justified lines.

Conserves space by packing more text on a page.

Uses enhanced internal logic to generate

E-3
characters via a CRT display tube. Some may

be connected to certain word processors.

Font styles and sizes are determined under

program contol with no external film font

masters.

- Micrographics — Reduces document storage

space requirements. Used alone or in conjunction

with a computer. Microform types include

roll, jackets, fiche, and aperture cards.

Microform location determination can be

accomplished by coding the film as documents

are photographed. Retrieval devices range

from mechanical reader-printers to automated

terminals. Computer output microfilm (COM)

and computer generated graphics are included

in this group.

The distribution phase involves the transmission

or movement of output documents or data. Representative equipment includes:

Intelligent Copier — Directly converts

electronically stored data or text (prepared

by a computer or word processor) into multiple,

hard copy output. Print requests and information

are usually received via hardwired attachment

or communication lines; however, some also

have the capability of reading and/or writing

magnetic media. Some adjust printing to

alternative formats. Other available options

include collating and multi-side copying.

Facsimile (FAX) — Relays alphanumeric and

graphic information to remote sites through

ordinary telephone lines, private transmission

lines, or microwave relay systems.

Executive Telephone — Aids the professional

in daily communications and personal computing

needs. Features may include call pickup,

automatic dialing, LCD display, calculating,

clocking, and appointments calendaring.

Word Processing/Data Processing System with

Communication Feature — Sends and receives

alphanumeric information stored on the system.

Usually includes ability to store, retrieve,

and forward information. Transmission occurs

via hardwired attachments and/or communication

lines. Some systems support communicating

intelligent terminals. If primary use is personto-person communication, it can be considered

a form of electronic mail.

E-4
•0

0) (0 0 1 o c

(0(S s ITJ 0 <u CO

<u CO -H

iH U-l 0) XI V4 c

Id 0

>i -w > <H 4J

Id CO > u

n) (U §

"O 3 0 w C IW

0) 0) -H c o tQ +J H u c 3 0 o c 0 o o

CO -w

<u

(1) XI > § > 0 0

4J +J

iC 4J

u CO c

4)

CO 0 0) o

<U

u c H

U U-l c <*-! 0) 0 O

•w

+J > e 0 0

4J

u c n CO

Itf (U 4J U-l 0 c T! C C

<D Id -H 3

CO > x: 0 o <u w

(1) >,5

-0 l-l 0 o - C -iH 0) >i

^1 0) x: 0 (U Id 0

X3

k U-l Id

a)

u

CO (U 0) v< o>

t7> > (U 0 C ITJ •H

fl

H

0) x;

CO

u

0) V4

Id CO S 3 c

•H

•HU

(0 ^;o

Id %

Id Q

CO -p•H

0)c

ID

4JC

0)a

•H3 I

f^j Id

CM > • Id

(£) CO 3

"a- I I o O C C 3

•.^COCO

(U

ft

a,

_ c « U O o O -H 00

-p cn

04 Id »-&

(«

CO •& CO CO •H c <S) CO c 3 0 0 U 0 0 c •H 0) 0 -H

x: 0 +J c +J 4J •H Id Id Id

CO

N CO

C ^^

M-l CO Id

•rf, " 0 0) C •H 0> iH

!^u

>i 0) & 0 1-1 p u u P JJ 0 4J •H ID •ft 0 Id CO 3 1 jj >1 -H

Id (U 0 fi CO rH C (U V4 <»-l -i-i U Id u Ci, 0 0 • m •

•0

(1) c 0 0 0

•0 •H rH f-i (0 c H

a) Id 4J Cn Id s -S. d O c c

-H &> CO •H c Id Id CO +J c -H -O Id 0 u 0 Id

r-l

C 4J >iM +J 0 Sh u U 3 B c •w 0 Id 0 ft

<w Id +) CO x: 4J (1) 3 Tl

C

x; ft Id CO 0) x: <i> •H

CO -P •H

u >, f-j -rl U u 0 V) +>

U

U 0 CO 0 (U 0 •H

C 3 V <v CO Id CO CO v-i Id 0 3 -P c 1^ XI c 0 JS ,C O4 (0 Id a >1 Id i C IS u CO Id u H lU Id x: +j a< XI • • • • • c0

•H

+)

IdU

u

Idu

•w -Po

0) o

0) <u

Cfl CS

(0

C 0) 0 c

>1 •H -H

CO 4J +J r-l •H 0 1 0 3 M-l CP Id "O IM c ft 0 0

-rH (Su

u 0 ft CO n ^ 0

cu (1)

p -p

0) Id iH c c

I-(

u XI •H (U XI 0 Id G

0) •H 4J r-l 4J ft

+j CO CO •W 3 -rl CO Id ft 3 0 0 > C 0< 2 a Id H 0) • •

Tl

IDO3

-O

0)

>H

CO •H

1)6

•H

JJco

•H

4JO

0)0o c I(u a: ft o > o

4Jc u •H

<D 3

-0

Id ID

(Uu on K •H u 4J 0 U CU rH

Id ^ X5 0 •rl > !m CO ft CO 3 0 a

ft -P C c CO

l-i •rl ft

E-5
C I U <

03D » C Q< 0) •H e 1-1 0 3

(U

O JJ

W nS

nl - U

0) -U 0)

Vi 3 ^ y Q( - C X <H

•H &>D to dO 0 (U

O

O Vj r-l I o X (5 cq vD j-i to in 1 o

00

4J (1)

m

4J

ITS 0 <!>

H

C 0) e On Oh to (U

i-l 10 3 (t) (U

u

u 13 0 •r-l IB >!-) to XI 3 W to US C7< >i -M JJ 0) C <P •H 0) •H C 0 M U C O •H Qi -H O «-l ij C 0) S-l > to

1) •H 13 4J -w

(!)W S^

f-H 0 Cn

O i-l >t O) CP

r-l c O » r* c

(0 S-l •w <4-l 0) (fl

C X) •H

Ij (U c •H •r^ S-l 0 O

d

<D ;Q c to

O 3 J3 c e <8 (0 to <D O JO •a

qj

b <1>

u 0 a.U o •^^ c

c5 c U CO o< to e iC • • • • •

(0 r-4 1 4J t? to c

a< 3 <U •H 0) 4J •w O, -P 4J 4J 0 X c c 2 to

a; Ti

C

d

nH s +j •H (V to (t> <n e e u d

JJ

u s-l

n

O --1 0 0

-H 0 •w fH

0-1 4J XI lU IC 01 (U 3 .U

0) -o 1?

u 3 C C 0) 1.2 0) 0 X)

(Uu

m 0)

O c d ^

°< , > tJ (0 (tJ o s^

d

0) o -H 0 •H 03 -d cn c X) <0 4J to -H 0 d 0 o

-o

03 -0

4J •I-l <u \ 3 0) 0) 3 •P p .M 4J •0 0) O ^ o

(1) oi D< •w TS 1 X 0 0) 0 d C •O iH (U (U u Vl S.I (0 w 8 •H <u 3 PS 4J »w On • m • d0&Ou O OS

t^

f-( •H • ON

•>t < 1 r-l CO •H O lU • +J •H (1) U U Of 3 <U -0 6 CQ 0 0) o

s^ a) 00

a, I d 01

(U •H

H

<x> 03 CO o -H 3 m M CQ

+J r-l O 10d

in -H

03 1.2u S <" 0 Q,

J<! 10 10 O 0) (0 CJj 01 01

Sq

0) 3

03 -0 d

84 3

03

O

OJ

O

PS 0

•0

0) CO 0 u d 03 4J

a>

C

Xi 0

•0 .rl in <0 t d d d d 0

(0 <o 0 03 0 -rl

u 0 u (U -r( V 3

03d 03 0 U Q4

03 (0 <0 (0

u (0

<U c; -H f-l 4J

CJ r-l fl) 03 rs 03

CJ t) >i 0) 10 s

10 .s

o< s: 0) o (1) 3 01 J<! d d

JJ 03 3 (0 (1) « ° <U C3| X •0

r-l 0 d

4J (0 0) 0 <o d > 10 4-> a)

(1) (I) -o

.r) ^1 ^ 0)

d §!

10

U

m (1) +j

d 10 rH

+) 4J

a > Qt

d . §^ 0

0) lO 10 10 (0 )-l > 5 ft 03 u 0 0)

<0 rH d rH

(flO (fl

d -H

d 0 03 H 03 03 B U ID U

(U V-l (V a< o M

Sh 01

E-6
a, «)> I E

•r-l -H -H

0% a, •H >, *> +J 00 0 CT> C I O i*P O -H 0>

o> >

-p

(!)

U > 3

0) &>

•O 0) Ic

ISo

+JX

<"

_

0)

Id 5 g • •m

1-1

0) tji o c

•H

(1) T-l 0

<0 »

(0 +J

•H 0)

H-l e +J

0) -H c 4J

V

t7>

C c 0 (IJ •rH

_

O "O o 1 v

0) 4J i-l

>4 •gl 0 •H as u• •

03 (C •W 4J > M

0)

^^ CO 0 2

T3 >i

CO

C 3 0

•0

0)

(1) 4J

(I) mo

jjw I CP

a) -H 0 o W 0

ro (0

>. -0 >

4-) 0) 0) > 3 _

(1) 2 _ 0 ,

0) ID >i > 03 rH

«J 3 C

0) -P itjC

0»

U 10

Its

D

0)

OC nJ > M C

•« M-l CC OJ 10

i>, 00 -H 4J

4J t- > (0

03 +)•H

0)

ifl ow

03

0)

03 03 H •W c iH 03 •H Qt 43 c o« a; H 1-1 o 3 O 0 0 4J 03 iH u

0) ^ lO

C 4J 0 03 +J n C V4 >i X a) ^ (0 -t-l 03

03 i-i 0 o

4J -o <»-l T3 c 0) 0) I-I 0) 10 •0 4J a, 0) 0 > c 10 10

10 4J 03

03 >1 1-1

U

C iH 4J iH 08 3 3 V •H 3 1-1 03 0 JJ

«3 Qi

O > ^< 0^

lO

C « <0 * 10

0)

H H-l o • • • 0 ti

r-l10 >i 03 1 IS U

•a r-\ 0 a Qi -P

IS 03 iH

4J -rt "O

CO

Q Cd I c 0 03

01 03>

00 Oi

00 I>i

0) •r^ 01 t>

(0 iH

^4 -U

0)O > 3

I-I •« <4-l 10 OiiH C C

1-1 -H *

(T> Ci( «N iH >, fM

V< 4J iH O I o in 0 "-I

M-l 03 i-l

1-< •O > 0)

03 03 &>

03 1-1 <0 3 _^ >J •O 03 <M C >

(8 10

03

-CJ V4

C 10 0 "O -W c

03 10 > 03

03U CO O B

IM

T) >,

03 iH

03

C 3 0 U

10 43

(0

0) 1-1C c 03 03 t

10

C o •H <o « >l 0 n i g § & 4J e r-l C (0 03 0 03 •0 C 03 >i

-0 iH ri 0 03 09 XJ O 03 03 a 0 0) 0 03 04 03 03 x: u 04 CO O4 C uo

0)

O 03

03 03

>-lO

Ifl 0 € 0^

03 § SM 0 S4

tJ a:

10 10 •o m

10 Q4

iS *=M

03 3

03 "O C

84 3

09

U

0)

O

K 0

•a

0)

4-1 £

•-I

03

Q43o

10 ,Qe

03 +J

03>i

CO

«3 •H

0) 03

1-1 •H 0) c iH 03 03

1-1 01 ti 0) § i-H 4J C PS Q4 >1 lO

1-1

U 3 0 10 03 -0 +J 03 iH V4 e

03 03 4-> 10 c *J 03

i-i •0 0 03 03 ^ i

+J rs

C >i J.!

X c 10 4J 03 03 tj» 03 « 0 _ C3 10 4J 0

4J

u 03

m

0) I-I IM 04

03 >i •0 -P I 03 0 •0 > i-i C IB c 0) 03

U

•H -H Its 4->

a 0) 03

g

U 03

03 03 1-1 •&

U (0 03

C 10 +J I-I 03 3 03 0 3

03 03 3 -1 03 0 (U IM 03 D4 0 > V4 Q4 IM l4 g 0 ^ 03 a IB 10 ^ 10 -H 03 0 J3

-HM M-l CO 0 0 Q4 CO 4J • • • • •

E-7
(0 In

•H i-t JJ a) to i-l c

to «) ifl 0 o H to 0) •-^

C

u

U 0 4J (-1 •H « 10 0 0 0 4J c 0^ s to (!) (0 u to 0) 0 (0 o 0 u 0) c

<u iw o ns

D x: 6 0 +J g. a, o w o )^ (0 -H 0) t)

(0 l-l

a

Q •4-1 0) c (C n) 0

to

oe

0)

(I) •r-l X! u >i

to c 4J tj

C

A<J <D c s (0 U O (1) u

tJ to e Oh J2 0) 4J

1-1 to 0 o •H

to > Q

qo cH e (Down

>i <D 0)

i-t tn u to to

BD

(fl •rH >l ft w .-1 U W iH U c

0)

to

nj

O 0 2i H

•u >^

(C <d "O Q) (0 Oi

S-(

0) c

-o •^^

to "tJ cO !^ a, p

to o

d)

u

PS o • • • • • • • •

0) toc to o u

•w c 0)

w 4)

•rH 4J X) o c m

14-1 10 i 0 1 IS -o 0 c u 0) c (1) B c c •w C c > c 0 H 0) e 0) (SOW JJ 0 o (8 r^ (!) CO u i-t •w •H c O (U (C o (!) 0 Vl •H p

Q) s- 3 (!) +j nS

p ^ o 0) -0 > 0) 4J c

<*-!

y woo

u c (!) M-l g.

to (0 (!) u-i (!) r-l <D d)

U -I 0 (0 14^ tu )^ -p Vi -H B •H l-l 4J a 3 W -H s IS i H O to T) io i (U -I 0) to a (1) +J 4J -O IS l-l IS

<*-) 4) ITS 3 to rH

a >, (8 (!) (1) (!)

C CO

0) Tt

-o

(1) >l to J3

a ^ (!) X! •d c >i IB (!) c C C C (!) 3 &> rVi >i c W c 0) Cn (S

0) <c iC ro 3 c (C c d)

X 4J

p

0] ^ -o 6 4J 0 «4-l o 0 1 +J (8 IS X e n u 0 -H •H l-l 0) 0 ttj to 4J a C X (1) 4J 3 w 4J a CO 3 e a (S -P 0) w tJ^ <P 6 (8 a u w Vl

(!) X) T! (U ij 3 0 u <u 0 (0 (!) o 0)u 3 (!) (!) 0

JO 0)C > o to to tou

n :3 f-l

U XIHu 0 W

W

W iH

d (0 r-l tw JJ a) 0) 4J •o

a iH U-I 3 T! +J c a, 0 u to C (!) a > a c c a 3 u w c C X

(B

u

X > (0 to to (S Tj <T3

w lO •H

a 0) S>

IS IS »H <D

U 0 0 0)U 3 H ft ro o H

u >l-l IS c ft +Ju 0 • • • • • • • • • • • u

41 +J3

§-0u

•rHc u

•M

w

tri

u o o

jjm

•w

jJ

IS 4J IS w X

a CO w

CO •o a;

4)

O0

4)U& O

-H 3 C

tji 0) 0 C Tl -H

•H

C 4J

TO 4) IS TO a O

4) 4) O "O Oa

IS IS +J -P

ISO

Q 4J

a

>i

a

ISo

IS

4) c 4) 4) 0 0 Ij x;

TO

V JJ

IB

u e 0

4) 4) a £7 -pJJ

C 4) 4) 0

4) 0 TO XI

O

p

X! IB TO 4) -w 0 jJ t3 TO S r-l JJ o >1 u c C C 4) TO TO 45 (8 IS a 4) 4)

(S

C 0)

H -0

u

g -H

g

U •H CJ 4) JJ IS 4) -o iHC

IS 4)

X

a

U

a c IS 0

>^

C 4J 4) (B i O 4) a; 4) •H

0) l-l TO 13 IB o W >

4J >i Xi 4) 3 4) (S 4) IB

C

l-l JJ TO 4)

a X3 3 4)

g l-l >i TO TO >i 0 4) (B IB -H 4) C te •H fH 4) o e-l -•EC X> 0 c J C l-l O

XIO -H

a x: IS

H

D 0 4) rH

g >i TO TO o 3 U4

ft

u

a 4) "O 4) 4)

w IP

U

a CO

C IS s U l-l E-i 3 0 C

•H

TO

TO

4)

CJO^

ft

g

4) IB JJ O CO

E-8
m o u u 00 <u

(V (U 0^

p

+J r-l

H o (0 u

<« 0 1-1 (U

VIM -0 +J 0)

TJ

a

u

n Of

<s 1

(8 >1 o •0 +) 4J >i c +J in 0 a # U •H

If) o 1 CO •W 1-1 ro )-( 0 CO •o m •rH in 4J

+J 0) (Q 1 O u (U m 00 0) Ck

in 0) D) (0 t i-t «s

1-1

wa o 1-1 (D

C to * S *J 0 C O H I M 0)

&> -p cc

(d c 6 S H V

(0 -P m c

a) •^ o u ou o 2 S S H

4) ,Q

>iu«

04

01C "O •H 0) 4J M U -H « 9

TOC 4) H U

+) -O

0) 0) (D CO (0 XI 3 m 0 V c 3 (1) <D (C 0) C J3 V o

CO c c 1*

>i 0 0) •H 0

OJ o

1-1 8^

O iH (U

(0 (0 o •H 0 3 -H n JJ c 0) »H

a 0 (U 0 T)

0> tH 0) P M

•H Vi 0)

O

as s o IP (P • m •

CO o (0

u iH 1

1-1 i) CO (U

u CO <D at

4J 2

0^ -P -P CO •rH <]> •P 4-) Q4 >i

JJ i-( •H

u

u 4J

M CO >i -P

O CO fitu 0) 3 0 l-t IT) P -rH (0 IH 0 1-1 <a 10 a M-l l-l IH 3 u T3 •rH iJ o g v CJ -rH <B X3 a U IH CO (0 0 K CU £*> •rH XI

;C (8 0 ITJ >1

O

U ITJ o O •p <p 4J >1 ITJ in 4J Q, c (0 +J c x; & 00 in 0 ITJ CM 0 Q dP u tH u 0 u 0 <D U

CT> o § 00 •rH iH o ifl 1-1 <n PO 1-1 iH M •H o XJ o rH I <D

U 0 CO '0 CO •rH 4J XI <N CO Vh c 'J <V +J (U +J CO CJ §4

iH 0) x; 00

C 4-) 0) M CO o (U 1 u 3 o rH 1-1 (U •H

t~~

a

9) r-l « O <u CO

CO

O t (1) u 'J I Eh rH P S co

XIu

ITJ ooc

CO Pc

-HU

O4

>i

r-l OJ rH 0)

ITJ -rH ='m O • •

o; 4J

M ITJ 0)Q4 u c

ITJ •d

u ITJ CO D4 0) c CO

•rH &> -H t! 4) CO T! C J= 4) XI 4) 4) P ITJ -P <S +J 4) c 0) c ITJ Mh

•rH 0) 0 » CO IH u ip u ^

Oi 0) >i 84 4) >i U rH CO U Ck

rH (fl rH •rH 4) 0 ITJ rH nj u x: •rH U D4

•rH nj CO 0 0) 8- c

rH 0 0) •H •rH

U

ITJ o •rH r-l

C c ITJ 0 •rH 3 4) 4J >. 0 •rH t>1 -P 0 4J IH u CO c rH ITJ 3 CO H-) D4 HJ 0 rH 6

x:O 0 0) c; c XJ ITJ 0 0 +J Q4 <o 4) •rH 3 -P •H IH x: U (0 CD 3

Q4 fl (1)u

D lU • • • • • •

<0 .p

o> c c •H c u

+JoI

•a I u c 0 0 s 2:

>1 rH3 vi

to !^

a

•H o -P uh 3

>i o

4-> 4>

•-H rH Cr

1-1 JQ

C

ITJ ITJ •rH 3 4J CO V a, m coo •iH HJ U

jH c Ci Oi 3

to

CO

4)OOU

U

(U <D +J

ITJ

C

4J •rH nj )H Q O4

E- 9
c

•H

•P -Io

a;ui

(0

CO 4Jw

U-lcm

wO4JC

•H3 I U U

0) (!)

0)c

ID (U .H C 4J •H D o iH a o — o 0 « (1) u o c o

in ifl 1 0) 0) 4J Q< >1 W >i +J

IC 4J •H

0-1

u

TT

dP XI o

0)

u

Oh 1 el

00 .-1 c 4J r~ 00 (0 •H

(Ti iH •a- 4J

0) +)cCww

—

U 0)3C

ft 4J

nsC

4J

O

<«

O

Q ^

0) V,0

(1) o

Q( &

CO

<i; IT3 o c Q

•H c

rH 0

<v

O CO CO1 3

)^ o C

•g

jj•H c

nj :» x; 
 +j Q)

>i

+1 >i

•P o •H

in •^^ i-H •H

p-i XI 1 o

(U o s

<u 01

O J= r-l

<t) •H JJ J3 > > CO 0 0

-H

u

CO 0 x; c CO •o

0) c •H (d CO > 01 0) x: >1 XI

+J

CO -o •r-l >1

CO -H l-l 0) CO •H

iH 3 u XI o 3

0) 0 o 4J A (8 i s0 CO 0 u 0

<^

u CO • •

>1 >u

(8

O I U

0) 0) U CO 04 0

CO c u ns 0 Q)

03 6

CO

(1) (8 U0 CO U (8

w E O 0

it-l

U

C

O

-H x:

(8 tJi O -H 3

>in a,

(1) <c c

04 -H

0}

o< c 18

lU Ot

ID iH

•3 <8 <u

+J

C 0

(U -H X5 in

(1)

V > XI

<8 +J

CO c c C

(8 0) O dPo •H M "t 3

(U 1 tr- CO o 0) D n

COu

<v

COooo0

4Jo

(UCOIoo0

i>o

<D X!

XI 04

>i <D

(8 -U E IBU CO

CO (D 0 K C Q) 8 0_ ns 0

4JO

CD

CO3 CO

•w

+J

<8

n

U (U <8 CO 04 <8

<V (U ^ U

O4

U

g5

E-10
>1 (U H 0 "0 0) rH 0 Q)

I-] dP --• s o

M i-l > VD u lO 0) 0) c •H 0} •

1 c U 01 u

c 0 X) c 0

H Q V •H u

<U U >

0 o< c \ r« o u o m

"§ m m 0) m o

0) •H

dP <^ o i <M

in . ct: D -H

CM u — (0 o

•

«) •0

iated ting e 1 CO C c o CO g ^ (1) c o •H o H tH •H i 0) CO X M-l o> •§

CO 0) 0

It) -0 to c 01 (0 u

<M C c 0) -H c to +J s <w u

0 o <8 u (U (0 0 0) 0 3 3 to •H -H u x> g

>l 4J i-l "O to 4-i 3 c

4-> CO 0 «) <u •H dJ iC >1 0 0

•H 0) U o •o o > -H *J -I 3 P o 0) 0 to to

(0 &• c u c +J 0) o CO o Qi a. O H V-l CO <0 0* to 0 <c +J iH *J > 1-1 c •w 01 Id 0! c H

(U >1 0 c <u c > 0 0 (U > to •H •H c 01 0) •rH v o o CO •H 4J (0 1-1 X •w V4 (1) s: 01 O 1 V u J= m 01

0) 1-1 0 "O 4J Q< It) a 4) -H 0 c 0) •H •H 10 e n ,Q M-l to u •^ K

• • •

to D, c d (1) s: •H c

!S« c o u

0 •^^ o to 10 C o iH V (U 0 > iH 10 iH 4J -H e 1-1 •w •H O 4J

i-H >^ 0 B <u ig •H <u > d

<M •H Q< c m w E ^ g

0 to 10 £ iH l< 0 U <0 D( u-i o -H a, M-i O o 0) 0 Q) M-l d

a) o c !^ » +J 0 0

1-1 0 0 10 10 +) c <D O iH c +) to to 0 d) to to 10 o •w o •0 •3 rH « 4J

1-1 10 u C 01 -w lO CO -H

0> 0^ 0 0 c <v c CO to o o •H «-l t

^

iH 10 (1) 0) > to o 10 <1> M-l •o 0) u to o H O

u to •H u jr •H 0 +j (3) >1 V< 0 o r-l w

o i

r-l 4J o 10 Q< <H (0

U-l s

0) 4) a) lu 0

CO 0 (0 V4 u 0 rH

• • •

O 10

IDu e

10 >-i •w

10 "4-1 +J 0

10 >-t •o o

lO c

+J o

IO 0)

-r^ r-l

(1) 10 §> 10

10 0) s >^

10

do

s

01

M-l d

O •r^ p

d d o -r^

o

10 »-l o

d

o

•H

•pd

0) +J

ID

C

10

U

0)

to H (I)

10 CO u

0 -o

1^ >,

(1) (0

to

0) to TJ d ^4 o o sou

•H to

M-l -H o u

u ^^ i3> O tfl •rj O 10

COo

J=2

OiO

u

o

E-11
c

•Ho5Ua

0) p

M-J0)c

4Jc \U)

a; jj0

<«

S-l uooI IT)

O 1*

IT) ID O

r-! -H

•^4 ^ « ID e S (l> m u M 3

Q, •-I

O

05 <-l o e r- y (N w 0 ro o

to 0)

O >i > O CO £ I 4J O

lO

SJ. (0D< inVO

Ij ^ 0

lu to •HU

C <M «

0) £00 3 JJ JJ

d) -I

AJ .-I (0

(0 o c r-l

m 0 (1) c to c >

to JJ •H

tou tJ 0 0 0 <0 0 r-l (P 1)

CO ID to to

U 3 iJ c

to (O to to •H (D

to

C

H

U

0)X

y

8- <0

ti

u <u

u to

I'

a r-l JJ

t!

u 10 to to

C •o •H •H to 0

0) .U to JJ 0) o

a; (0 c to c c

•^^ c T! (U 0) 0) •H (1) 0) JJ o JJ to c

§^ Ij 0 0 3 u O (1) x> • • • •

XIc

(0u

tu&>

10u0

+J

to

JJC TJ

0) 0) G 0 3 3 S 2

JJc

to

0) 1 •H

•H 1 jj to C c o 3 -a <y o D

0) JJ (0 JJ o 0) <u 0 c XI u to cn » o 10 c TJ 0 ^ c c JJ to JJ c JJ lO 0) 0 -u >i c (U c o c to x: ij tJ

0) 0< 10 iH i i

to > >1 .£! 3 c c r-( * c; O o u 0 0 r-l (0 •H 0 e 0 •w CJ (0 *^ •o 10 n JJ O lO 0 MJ o (0 <c •H

u-l U-l o c to TJ 0 to 0 •H to O c C TJ (0 u 0) •o 0 3 fl) JJ x: -H rH

0) I e u to o +J

0) JJ 0 e c JJ (0 "0 JJ Q< (0 o 0 (0 u M U •^^ to u CO o x: u tJi TJ l-l • • • • X 0u

cN

a <(-i rH JJ

fO 00 a

jj -

0) to E jJ

to lO >^ c a 0a o vj »- a) CO jj (U o

00

0^ „ - 0

JJ

M 1—1 •H to

lO 0) g

O •H o u U 0 • «u o c 00

to>1D

VO TJ Vl > 9) c CN ft JJ u CO 0 u <0 +J <c

m • c c H 1 >

•r(

B >1 <M

<D 4) 0) )^

g iH

O 0 JJ

0) <1> 0 TJ 0) to

Ij TJU o r-l 3 C lO & TJ J3 •i-i (0 0) c 4) (0

to 0 > JJ jJ •H to lj> ^ 1-1 •H Q< to » -w c c to *J 4) « 0 X •H (1) v <0 Ci O O

>i <u TJ E 0 JJ

®

O

4J c B 1-1 to

U as 0

•H JJ 4) 0 > 1 JJ rH 03 to 0 0) 0 M-i 0) 2

TJ TJ JJ 0 XI JJ x> e Uj 1 iH

•rj 0 cn TJ c c >1 JJ 3

+J (1)

C 0) •H 0 c P 0 O

10 o to -H JJ <C •ri 0 •H

C •H

<D > -H 4J P 1-1 f-l <U N -H E V4 Id jj « >1 <W 0 4) O TJ

•H tU -H

CO

O ^ vu

4J (0

to c

•HQ

u

45c

x: 4) o

mess

4)

"*J rH

05 •H C

>13 U

JJ

an

05 JJ JJ C

ume ter

Doc fas

E-12
4Jo

ui

uo

(0 •H

<t-l I)c

•a3

CH

JJC

0o

EHOJ

4Jc

rH

0)E C -H

•H -tJ C

oH

+JO

3

(I> ^1 ew

dP W O -H

P

M

0

or

U 3

a> o

4J u

U CD

(03 <S) c

+J fO

CO r-

>i §

•H Sh

r-l <P -H C

*i B

10

o *

0) eg

J3 0) c

1-1 » "9 =

(0 o

O M k

tu cu 0

&> en c c

•rH -H

to 03

o o

1)3

I -p e nj

U -P O nj » Q

+J c

•H O

S '-t E (0

(1) c; w c

>i 3

C/} E

E-13
Bibliography of Sources of Office Automation Information

Reference Materials*

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

American Society for Information Science

1010 Sixteenth Street, N. W.

Washington, 0. C. 200 3 6 Datapro Reports on Office Systems

Datapro Reports on Word Processing

DataPro Research Corporation

1805 Underwood Boulevard

Delran, New Jersey 08075

Auerbach Computer Technology Reports

Auerbach Publishers, Inc.

6560 North Park Drive

Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109

Quarterly Bibliography of Computers & DP

Applied Computer Research

P.O. Box 9280

Phoenix, Ari:^ona 85068

Selection of Terminals

Association for Systems Management

24587 Bagley Road

Cleveland, Ohio 44138

*Note: Vendor literature also provides information.

E-14
Professional Associations

Administrative Management Society

2360 Maryland Road

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090

American Society for Information Science (ASIS)

1010 Sixteenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Association for Systems Management

24587 Bagley Road

Cleveland, Ohio 44138

Association of Records Managers and Administrators

P.O. Box 281

Bradford, Rhode Island 02808

International Word Processing Association (IWPA)

Maryland Road

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090

National Micrographics Association

8709 Colesville Road

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Society for Management Information Systems

One Illinois Center

Suite 600

111 East Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

E-15
Periodicals

Administrative Management

Geyer-McAl lister Publishers

51 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10010

ARMA Records Management Quarterly

Association of Records Management and Administrators

P.O. Box 281

Bradford, Rhode Island 02808

Business Communications Review

36 South Washington Street

Hinsdale, Illinois 60521

Business Week (Information Processing Section)

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

Communications News

Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.

402 West Liberty Drive

Wheaton, Illinois 60137

Computer Business News

C.W. Communications, Inc.

797 Washington Street

Newton, Massachusetts 02160

Computer Decisions

Hayden Publishing Company, Inc.

50 Essex Street

Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662

Computer Graphics & Image Processing

Academic Press, Inc.

Ill Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10003

Computers and People

Berkeley Enterprises, Inc.

815 Washington Street

Newtonville, Massachusetts 02160

Computerworld

Computerworld, Inc.

797 Washington Street

Newton, Massachusetts 02160

E-16
Periodicals (continued)

Corporate Systems

United Technical Publications, Inc.

645 Stewart Avenue

Garden City, New York 11530

Datacomm User

Communications Trends, Inc.

214 Third Avenue

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154

Data Management

Data Processing Management Association

505 Busse Highway

Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

Datamation

Technical Publishing Company

1801 South La Cienega Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90035

Distributed Processing Digest

Marketeers, Inc.

10522 Ridgeway Drive

Santa Ana, California 92705

Dun's Review

Technical Publishing Corporation

666 Fifth Avenue,

New York, New York 10019

EDP Analyzer

Canning Publications, Inc.

925 Anza Avenue

Vista, California 92083

EDP Industry Report

International Data Corporation

214 Third Avenue

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154

EDP Weekly

EDP News Services, Inc.

7620 Little River Turnpike

Annandale, Virginia 22003

EFTS Industry Report

EDP News Services, Inc.

7620 Little River Turnpike

Annandale, Virginia 22003

E-17
Periodicals (continued

)

Electronic News

Fairchild Publications, Inc.

7 East 12th Street

New York, New York 10003

Forbes

Forbes, Inc.

60 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10011

Government Executive

Executive Publications, Inc.

1725 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

IBM Systems Journal

IBM Corporation

Armonk, New York 10504

IEEE Spectrum

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

445 Hoes Lane

Piscataway, New Jersey 08854

IMC Journal

Information & Records Management, Inc.

250 Fulton Avenue

Hempstead, New York 11550

Industrial Engineering

American Institute of Industrial Engineers, Inc.

25 Technology Park/Atlanta

Norcross, Georgia 30092

Industry Week

Penton-IPC

Penton Plaza

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Information & Records Management

Information & Records Management, Inc.

250 Fulton Avenue

Hempstead, New York 11550

Information Systems Pergamon Press, Inc.

Maxwell House

Fairview Park

Elmsford, New York 10523

E-18
periodicals (continued)

Information World

Indian Head, Inc.

1022 Wilson Boulevard

NO. 1401

Arlington, Virginia 22209

Infosystems

Hitchcock Publishing Company

Hitchcock Building

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

Interface

U.S. National Institutes of Health

Division of Computer Research & Technology

Computer Center

Building 12, Room 2244

Bethesda, Maryland 220014

International Management_

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

Journal of Micrographics

National Micrographics Association

8728 Colesville Road

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Journal of Systems Management

Association of Systems Management

24587 Bagley Road

Cleveland, Ohio 44138

Management Review

American Management Association

135 West 50th Street

New York, New York 10020

Management World

Administrative Management Society

Maryland Road

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090

Micrographics Newsletter

Microfilm Publishing, Inc.

Box 313

Wykagyl Station

New Rochelle, New York 10804

E-19
Publications (continued)

Mini-Micro Computer Report

EDP News Services, Inc.

7620 Little River Turnpike

Annandale, Virginia 22003

Mini-Micro Systems

Cahners Publishing Company

Division of Reed Holdings, Inc.

270 St. Paul Street

Denver, Colorado 80206

Modern Office & Data Management

Rydge Publications Pty. Ltd.

Box 3337

Sydney, N.S.W. 2001

Australia

Modern Office Procedures

Penton-IPC

614 Superior Avenue, West

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Nation's Business

Chamber of Commerce of the United States

1615 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20062

OFFICE

Office Publications, Inc.

1200 Summer Street

Stanford, Connecticut 06904

Officemation Reports^

Management Information Corporation

140 Barclay Center

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034

Small Systems World

Hunter Publishing Company

53 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Technology Review

Massachusettes Institute of Technology

Alumni Association

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

E-20
publications (continued)

Teleconununi cations

Horizon House

610 Washington Stsreet

Dedham, Massachusetts 02026

Telephony

Telephony Publishing Corporation

55 East Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Word Processing Report

Geyer-McAl lister Publishers

51 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10010

Word Processing World

Geyer-McAl lister Publishers

51 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10010

Words

International Word Processing Association

Maryland Road

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090

E-21
NBS-n4A (REV. 2.ec) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET fSee instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBS SP 500-72

2. Performing Organ. Report No, 3. Publication Date December 1980

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Computer Science & Technology:

Guidance on Requirements Analysis for Office Automation Systems

5. AUTHOR(S)

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions) Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.

4330 East-West Highway

Bethesda, MD 20014

7. Contract/Grant No. NB80SBCA0351

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State. ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards (Division 651)

Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-600179

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a si gnificant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) Office automation systems can be broadly defined as those that transform ideas

into written communications via the interaction of people, procedures, and

equipment. In recent years, numerous studies, reports, and articles have

proposed that the use of such systems will contribute to the efficient preparation and distribution of general office communications and work products.

However, the Federal experience with office automation has been primarily

limited, thus far, to the implementation of word processing equipment and

documented evidence of the benefits received from these installations have

not been produced.

This guideline presents a methodology for determining the feasibility and

practicality of introducing (or expanding) office automation systems within

the Federal Government. It is applicable to all office automation technologies

such as word processors, dictation equipment, and telecommunications and is

designed for use by agency officials and other employees who have the responsibility for productivity improvement, procedural analysis data processing, or office systems.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Computer based office systems; office automation; requirements analysis.

13. AVAILABILITY

fx] Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[X] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

127

15. Price

$4.75

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

I JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the

1 National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and developI ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in

I which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$13; foreign SI6.25. Single copy. $3 domestic: $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Seclion A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial

practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—^Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative

data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AlP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services. Springfield. VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by F .- ecutive Order 11717(38 FR 12315, dated May II, I973)and Pan o of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D C, 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U S, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-2 1 5

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK