in Information Processing

Proceedings of the Third

National Symposium, Held at

NBS on 1977 September

28-30

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards and the

American National Standards Institute Committee X3L8

Institute for Computer Sciences & Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

April 1978

Final

QC

100

.U56

IONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

STATIONA_L BUBEAQ

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY ?oSu

NBSIR 78-1446

flUG 1 0 1978 -s>6

701833

Q C. I CrO -M £ w

*7g- |WV ^

i *5 77

MANAGEMENT OF DATA ELEMENTS

IN INFORMATION PROCESSING

PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, HELD AT

NBS ON 1977 SEPTEMBER

28-30

Tv<,c

Hazel E. McEwen, Editor

Institute for Computer Sciences & Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

April 1978

Final

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director

Table of Contents^

Page

Energy Information - Top Priority for Today 1

Ted M. Albert

Standardization of Data Elements and Machine -Readable

Symbol to Facilitate Blood Banking . .

• 7 Eric Brodheim, Sc.D.

A Technical Profile of Representative Government

Developed Data Element Dictionary/Directory Systems 19

Paul K. Brown

Cargo Data Interchange System (CARDIS) 25

Robert J. Cavanaugh

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 35

Ward Duel, MPh

Management of Data Elements in Information Processing

(Needs for Standards in the Health Care Field and

a Sampling of Current Applications) 39

Gerald J. Duffy

The Need for Standards in Data Transmission 43

Peter J. Finnerty, Esq.

Data Processing in Natural History Museums 47

T. Gary Gautier, Stanwyn G. Shetler and Craig Black

Commission on Federal Paperwork 59

Stephen M. Gershenson

Standards for Electronic Data Interchange 67

Edward A. Guilbert

General Concept of a Data Resource Directory System 71

Clarence E. Hankerson

International Standards Activities of the Economic

Commission for Europe 91

Eugene A. Hemley

Papers are sequenced by name of author.

i
Page

The Federal Information Locator System 97

Forest W. Horton, Jr.

The Urgent Need for Energy Information Standards

(To "Btu" or Not To "Btu") . . . 113

Richard W. Kline, Jr.

Criteria for the Selection of Data Dictionary/

Directory Systems 119

Bernard K. Plagman

Some History of Traditional Trade Documents 135

Robert J. Porter

Data Resource Management 139

Daniel B. Schneider

The Need for Standards in the Health Care Field and

A Sampling of Current Applications 141

Sheila M. Smythe

Appendix A - Participants 143
INDEX OF

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES

TO

AUTHORS' NAMES

ACCREDITED ORGANIZATION METHOD - Duel

AIDS DATA ELEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - Horton

AIR CARGO - Cavanaugh

AIRLINES - Guilbert

ALIGNMENT - Hemley

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BLOOD BANKS - Brodheim

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION - Duel

AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS - Brodheim

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD FOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

INTERCHANGE ON MAGNETIC TAPE (ANSI Z39. 2-1971) - Albert

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE METHOD - Duel

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) - Cavanaugh; Duel

ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGIES - Kline

ANSI MEDICAL DEVICES STANDARDS MANAGEMENT BOARD - Duel

ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM - Horton

ATTRIBUTES - Hankerson

AUTOMATED AIRPLANE TICKETS - Finnerty

AUTOMATED DATA DICTIONARIES - Albert

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING - Hemley

BANKS - Guilbert

BILL OF LADING - Cavanaugh; Porter

BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL WORLD - Gautier/Shetler/Black

BLOOD BANKING - Brodheim

BLOOD BANKING OPERATIONS - Brodheim

BLOOD PRODUCTS - Brodheim

BUREAU OF MINES (BOM) - Albert

CARGO DATA INTERCHANGE SYSTEM (CARDIS) - Cavanaugh; Hemley; Porter

CATALOGING AND INDEXING SYSTEM - Horton

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE - Horton

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN - Cavanaugh

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD DATA INDEX - Horton

CLASSIFICATION AND CODING STRUCTURES - Kline

CODABAR OPTICAL BAR CODE - Brodheim

CODING - Hemley

COLLECTIONS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

COMMERCIAL INVOICE - Porter

COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK - Gershenson

COMMISSION'S STUDY OF DUPLICATION - Horton

COMMITTEE FOR COMMONALITY IN BLOOD BANKING AUTOMATION (CCBBA) - Brodheim

COMMON ACCESS REFERENCE NUMBER - Hemley

COMMUNICATION - Finnerty

COMPUTERIZED INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM - Porter

CONTAINERIZATION - Cavanaugh

CONVERSION FACTORS - Kline

CURRENT RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM - Horton

DANGEROUS GOODS - Hemley

DARCOM DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY - Horton

DATA - Porter

DATA BASE ADMINISTRATION - Plagman

DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - Plagman

iii
DATA BASES - Gautier/Shetler/Black

DATA CATALOG - Albert

DATA CATALOGUE - Horton

DATA COLLECTION FORM - Albert

DATA COLLECTION/PUBLICATION FORMATS - Kline

DATA DESCRIPTION FILE - Albert

DATA DICTIONARY - Horton

DATA DICTIONARY/DIRECTORY SYSTEM - Horton; Plagman

DATA ELEMENT - Cavanaugh; Gautier/Shetler/Black; Hankerson; Heraley; Kline

DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS - Albert

DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY - Brown; Hankerson; Horton

DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY/DIRECTORIES - Brown

DATA ELEMENT DIRECTORY - Brown; Schneider

DATA ELEMENT NAMES - Albert

DATA INTERCHANGE - Cavanaugh

DATA ITEMS - Kline

DATA LABEL CONTROL SYSTEM - Horton

DATAMANAGER - Horton

DATA PROBLEMS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

DATA PROCESSING - Gautier/Shetler/Black

DATA PROCESSING MANAGEMENT - Hankerson

DATA QUALITY - Kline

DATA REQUIREMENTS - Hemley

DATA RESOURCE DIRECTORY - Brown; Hankerson

DATA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - Brown; Hankerson; Schneider

DATA SOURCES - Kline

DATA STANDARDIZATION - Gautier/Shetler/Black

DATA STANDARDS - Finnerty

DATA SYSTEMS - Kline

DATA TRANSMISSION - Finnerty

DB/DC DATA DICTIONARY SYSTEM - Horton

D- 20 DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY - Horton

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER SYSTEM - Horton

DEFENSE INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM - Horton

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) - Albert; Kline

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Hemley

DICTIONARY OF FEDERAL DATA ELEMENTS - Horton

DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL INFORMATION RESOURCES - Horton

DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC-USE REPORTS AND FORMS - Horton

DISTRIBUTED DATA BASE - Cavanaugh

DOCK RECEIPT - Cavanaugh

DOCUMENTATION STANDARDIZATION - Hemley

DRAFTS - Porter

DRAWBACK FORMS - Cavanaugh

DUPLICATION - Horton

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE - Cavanaugh; Hemley

ELECTRONIC BANKING - Finnerty

ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE - Guilbert

ENERGY - Albert; Kline

ENERGY CRISIS - Kline

ENERGY DATA AND COLLECTION - Albeit

ENERGY INFORMATION - Albert; Horton; Kline

ENERGY INFORMATION STANDARDS - Kline

ENERGY INFORMATION STANDARDS PROGRAM* - Kline

ENERGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS - Kline

ENERGY PROGRAMS - Horton

ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (ERDA) - Albert

ENTITIES - Hankerson

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTORY - Horton

EXPORT DOCUMENTS - Hemley

IV
FEDERAL AGENCIES - Albert

FEDERAL DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY - Horton

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION (FEA) - Albert

FEDERAL ENERGY INFORMATION LOCATOR SYSTEM (FEILS) - Albert; Horton

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - Gershenson; Kline

FEDERAL INFORMATION LOCATOR - Horton

FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SERIES (FIPS) - Horton

FEDERAL INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - Gershenson

FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON ENERGY INFORMATION (FICEI) - Albert; Kline

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (FPC) - Albert

FILE - Hankerson

FLOW OF TRADE - Finnerty

FOREIGN COMMERCE- - Finnerty

FOREIGN TRADE - Finnerty

FOREIGN TRADE DATA - Finnerty

FOREIGN TRADE DATA COMMUNICATIONS - Finnerty

FORM - Hankerson

FORMS MANAGEMENT - Hankerson

FORWARDERS - Guilbert

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - Gershenson; Horton

GENERAL AVERAGE - Porter

GENERAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - Horton

GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LABORATORIES - Albert

GROCERY STORE SCANNERS - Finnerty

HEALTH CARE - Brodheim

HEALTH CARE CREDIT CARD - Duffy

HEALTH CARE FIELD - Duffy

HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM - Duffy

HIGHWAY RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM - Horton

HOTEL RESERVATIONS - Finnerty

IMPORT DOCUMENTS - Hemley

INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY - Cavanaugh

INDEX TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLICATIONS - Horton

INDUSTRY - Albert

INFORMATION DIRECTORY - Horton

INFORMATION DUPLICATION - Horton

INFORMATION HANDLING - Albert

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STUDY - Horton

INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS - Horton

INFORMATION REPORTING BURDEN - Gershenson

INFORMATION RQMTS CONTROL AUTOMATED SYSTEM - Horton

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - Finnerty

INPUTS - Hankerson

INSURANCE CERTIFICATE - Cavanaugh

INTERMODAL SHIPPING - Cavanaugh

INTERMUSEUM DATA EXCHANGES - Gautier/Shetler/Black

INTERNATIONAL DIRECT DIAL TELEPHONE - Finnerty

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT - Cavanaugh

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD DOCUMENTATION FORMAT FOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

INTERCHANGE ON MAGNETIC TAPE (ISO 2709-1973) - Albert

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION - Cavanaugh

INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA STANDARDS - Finnerty

INTERNATIONAL TRADE INFORMATION - Cavanaugh

INVENTORY RECORDS - Porter

LETTERS OF CREDIT - Porter

LEXICON - Horton

LOCATOR SYSTEM - Horton

LOCATOR SYSTEM CONCEPT - Horton

v
LOGISTICS DATA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - Horton

MACHINE -READABLE SYMBOLS - Brodheim

MANAGEMENT - Duffy

MANUFACTURERS - Guilbert

MEDICAL LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS - Horton

MOTOR CARRIERS - Guilbert

MUSEUMS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

MUSEUMS DATA SYSTEMS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

MUSEUM RECORD SYSTEMS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

MUSEUM SPECIMENS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS - Cavanaugh

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE DOCUMENTATION (NCITD) - Cavanaugh

Hemley

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION - Duffy

NATIONAL HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES - Smythe

NATIONAL HISTORY INFORMATION SYSTEM - Horton

NATIONAL INFORMATION REFERRAL SYSTEM - Horton

NATIONAL REFERRAL CENTER DIRECTORY - Horton

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) - Albert

NATIONAL SCIENCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE - Horton

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE SYSTEM - Horton

NATURAL HISTORY - Gautier/Shetler/Black

NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

N.B.S. SPECIAL PUBLICATION - Brown

NETWORKS - Gautier/Shetler/Black

NOMENCLATURE - Kline

NUCLEAR DESALINATION INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM - Horton

OCEAN CARRIERS - Guilbert

OFFICE OF FACILITATION - Hemley; Porter

OFFICIAL DIRECTORY OF MUSEUMS - Gautier/Shelter/Black

OPTICAL BAR CODES - Brodheim

PAPERWORK - Horton

PATIENT INFORMATION - Duffy

PRIVACY ACT - Gershenson; Horton

PROCESSES - Hankerson

PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION CODE - Brodheim

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - Hankerson

PUBLIC - Albert

PUBLIC LAW 93-556 - Gershenson

PUBLIC USE REPORT PROFILE - Horton

RAILROADS - Guilbert

RECORD - Hankerson

RECORDS ASSOCIATION SYSTEM II - Horton

RECORDS MANAGEMENT - Hankerson

REPORT - Hankerson

REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION - Brown

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM - Horton

SHIPPERS - Guilbert

SHIPPER’S EXPORT DECLARATION - Cavanaugh; Porter

SOFTWARE SELECTION - Brown

SPECIAL INTEREST DATA - Albert

STANDARD DATA ELEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS - Albert

STANDARDIZATION - Albert; Brodheim

STANDARDS - Duel; Duffy; Finnerty; Guilbert; Smythe

STANDARDS IN THE HEALTH CARE FIELD - Smythe

STANDARDS’ PROCEDURES AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES - Duel

vi
STANDARDS PROGRAMS - Kline

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - Albert

SUBJECT UNDER STUDY - Hemley

TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXTENSION SYSTEM - Horton

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION - Cavanaugh

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER - Finnerty

TERMINAL - Duffy

TERMINOLOGY - Kline

TRADE DATA - Porter

TRADE DATA STANDARDS - Finnerty

TRADE DOCUMENTS - Porter

TRANSPORTATION - Cavanaugh; Finnerty

TRANSPORTATION DATA COORDINATING COMMITTEE (TDCC) Cavanaugh; Guilbert

TRANSPORTATION NOISE RESEARCH INFORMATION SERVICE - Horton

UCC TEN DATA DICTIONARY - Horton

UNITED NATIONS - Cavanaugh

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) - Albert

UNITED STATES MERCHANDISE TRADE BALANCE - Finnerty

UNITED STATES STANDARD MASTER - Cavanaugh

UNITS OF MEASURE - Kline

UNIVERSITIES - Albert

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY - Horton

VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS - Duel

WATER DATA SYSTEM - Horton

WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM - Horton

WORKING PARTY ON FACILITATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROCEDURES - Hemley

Vll
FOREWORD

The Third National Symposium on the Management of Data

Elements in Information Processing was held at the National

Bureau of Standards on September 28 through 30, 1977. This

Symposium was jointly sponsored by NBS and American National

Standards Institute Committee X3L8 on the Representation of

Data Elements. Several hundred professionals attended sessions

devoted to the recognition of data as a resource that needs to

be harnessed, costed, and managed.

Primary emphasis was given to the subject of Data Resource

Management, and was based on the assumption that it is data

that is being collected, processed, published, filed, transmitted,

used and misused. It is data, man's oldest resource that is

causing paperwork management problems. It is data that is

demanding more and more of the organization's resource dollar

for capital investment. It is data, the raw material, that

continues unmanaged, uncontrolled, and the subject of today's

privacy issues.

This Symposium featured the highlights of the Findings and

Final Report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork to the U.S.

Congress, the Federal Information Locator System, data resource management and data resource directories. Also considered were standards needs in the areas of energy information systems, the

health care field, national and international trade data

standards, and standards for museum data interchange systems.

NBS is pleas;ed to have the opportunity of mak

the pane rs , presented at the Symposium, availab le

proceedings

.

We feel that these are representa tiv

state -of -the - art of current data management pra cti

provide a us eful base for further activities in th

field

.

However , it must be st ressed that the resp ons

the cont ent of the papers p rovided in these procee

with the ind ividual authors and their organizat ion

not refl ect endoi•sement by the National Bureau of

ing the text o in these

es of the

ces and should

is important

ibility for

dings rests

s and does

Standards

.

f

Hazel E. McEwen, Program Chairperson

Office of ADP Standards Management

Institute for Computer Sciences and

Technology, NBS
FIRST SESSION: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND THE FEDERAL INFORMATION

LOCATOR SYSTEM

Program Co-Chairperson: Walter Schlenker

General Electric Company

Session Chairperson: William H. Kenworthey , Jr.

Department of Defense

Participants

:

Stephen M. Gershenson

Commission on Federal Paperwork

Forest W. Horton, Jr.

Commission on Federal Paperwork

From left to right: Walter Schlenker, William H. Kenworthey, Jr.,

Stephen M. Gershenson, Forest W. Horton, Jr.

Note: Addresses of speakers are in Appendix A.

ix
SECOND SESSION: STANDARDS FOR APPLICATION SYSTEMS [ENERGY INFORMATION)

Program Co-Chairperson: Walter Schlenker

General Electric Company

Session Chairperson: Nevaire Serrajian

Department of Energy

Participants

:

Ted M. Albert

Department of Energy

Richard Kline

Federal Energy Administration

From left to right: Walter Schlenker, Nevaire Serrajian, Ted M. Albert,

Richard Kline

x
SECOND SESSION: STANDARDS FOR APPLICATION SYSTEMS (HEALTH CARE)

Panel Chairperson: Sheila M. Smythe

Blue Cross-Blue Shield of

Greater New York

Participants

:

Eric Brodheim, Sc.D.

American Blood Commission

Ward Duel, MPh

American Medical Association

Gerald J. Duffy

Blue Cross Association of

Chicago

From left to right: Sheila M. Smythe, Eric Brodheim, Gerald J. Duffy

,

Ward Duel
SECOND SESSION: STANDARDS FOR MUSEUM DATA INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS

Panel Chairperson: Charles Kenny

U.S. Civil Service Commission

Participants

:

Craig Black Stanwyn G. Shetler

Carnegie Museum of Natural Smithsonian Institution

History

Gary Gautier

Smithsonian Institution

From left to right: Gary Gautier, Stanwyn G. Shetler, Craig Black

Xll
THIRD SESSION: INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA STANDARDS

Chairperson: Walter Schlenker

General Electric Company

Participants

:

Peter J. Finnerty, Esq.

Sea-Land Services, Inc.

Edward A. Guilbert

Transportation Data Coordinating

Committee

Robert J. Porter

Eastman Kodak Company

Robert J. Cavanaugh

General Electric Company

Eugene Hemley

National Committee on International Trade Documentation

xiii
FOURTH SESSION: DATA DICTIONARY/ D I RECTORY SYSTEMS

Bernard K. Plagman

DBD Systems, Inc.

DATA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Panel Chairperson: Aaron Hochman

Office of Secretary of Defense

Participants :

Paul Brown Daniel Schneider

U.S. Civil Service Commission U.S. Department of Justice

Clarence Hankerson

Federal Aviation Administration

From left to right: Walter Schlenker, Aaron Hochman, Paul Brown,

Daniel Schneider, Clarence Hankerson

xiv
FIFTH SESSION: WORKSHOPS

Harry S. White, Jr. (Coordinator) - Workshop on Establishing a Data

Standardization Effort.

George Begnal , General Electric Co. - Demonstrating a Trade Data

Interchange Application.

xv
FIFTH SESSION: WORKSHOPS

TG-17 Group - Data Resource Management/Data Resource Directories

(Standing) left to right: Daniel Schneider, Aaron Hochman (Chairperson),

Thomas Chittenden, William Morgan, (Seated) left to right: Roland Page,

Robert Mattes, Clarence Hankerson, Paul Brown

xvi

I

I
Energy Information - Top Priority For Today

T. M. Albert

Director

Office of Environmental Information Systems

U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration

Washington, D. C. 20545

The OPEC oil embargo of 1973, in part, created widespread concern over the

total energy picture in the United States. The embargo created the impetus toward

developing short and long-term plans and policies regarding every aspect of the

Nation's energy problems. To attempt to define the extent of the energy problem,

one of the first tasks undertaken was to gather as much information as possible.

At that time there was no national energy information program. Various

Federal offices collected data to suit their special needs and developed unique

methods and systems. Little attempt was made at coordination with other similar

activities

.

After the embargo. Federal energy-related activities in collection, analysis,

and dissemination of data continued at a greater rate. Speed and expediency took

precedence over control and coordination. Efforts were fragmented, the language

of energy data and collection was imprecise and uncontrolled, and there were wide

variances in reported data values as well as in methods of dissemination.

Today our energy situation has not improved appreciably. We now import more

than half the oil we use which brings with it the expected damaging economic

effects. The diagnosis of the U.S. energy problem can be stated simply: demand

for energy is increasing while the available domestic supplies of oil and natural

gas have been declining. The cure is far from simple, and its solution requires

attention to complex economic, political, and social factors, as well as technical

and scientific matters.

Similarly, we need and continue to collect greater quantities of data and

information which cover a wider and wider scope. However, at least until relatively

recently, there has been little movement toward methods of control, coordination,

standards, and validation of the data. The burden on respondents to requests for

data is crushing. At the same time, because of the energy problem, information is one of our top priorities.

To better understand our need for and the difficulties involved in applying

controls and standards, and better management of information handling, lets look

at the scope of the problem. One of the biggest information-intensive areas today is that revolving around energy, with the largest part of the effort being

carried on in the Federal Government. More than 40 different bureaus or agencies

collect data through more than 200 separate programs. And this does not include

R&D type information.

1 Albert
Energy information collected and processed in the Government serves three

basic needs: policy, regulation, and R&D. The bulk of the collected data is

economic or statistical which creates many numeric data bases. The rest is, of

course, bibliographic or text material.

The data and information collected concerns every related aspect and all

possible sources of energy-supply and demand, economics, pricing, companies'

operations and finances, resources and reserves, production, transportation,

imperts, transmission, socioeconomics, ecology, environment, health, safety,

conservation, specific technologies such as solar, nuclear, geothermal, and so

on. Sources of the data are: Federal agencies, state and local governments,

industry, government and private laboratories, universities, the public, and

special interest groups. With the exception of the public, all of these groups

also collect data. Literally hundreds of data collection forms are involved;

there is much redundancy, duplication, and a lack of standard definitions.

If we will accept the fact of the existence of the energy problem with all

its ramifications, we should not have to justify the value or need of the information; it should be clear. The following list of necessary information

application areas should be enough to illustrate our strong need for a wide

range of data: crises--brownouts , coal strikes, embargo; nuclear--fuel management/

use, safety, waste management, reactor construction; commercialization of

technologies; solar heating and cooling use and demand; policy, planning,

regulations, decisionmaking; environmental tradeoffs; reserves estimates;

electricity demand; etc.

To those of us in the data and information business the need for a range of

standards in this kind of environment is clear. As an example, consider the

terms "resources" and "reserves" and their definitions. Actually, in the world

of energy, these terms are not clearly defined. If you cannot clearly measure

a reserve of a resource how do you define it? When does a reserve become a resource or vice versa? Are they the same thing? Is a fuel reserve everything,

or everything that can be recovered, or everything that is economically recoverable?

How do you measure reserves--a different measure for each type or some common equivalency measure?

Consider the phrase "crude oil production". Do we measure it when it comes

from the well or when it transfers to a storage tank or pipeline or refiner? Do we include in the measure the sediment that may be present or water that may be

mixed in?

Take the term "imports". For purposes of statistical analysis, forecasting,

and reporting, when does crude oil become an import? When it is loaded in a contracted tanker? When the tanker arrives in U.S. waters or a U.S. port? Or

when it is unloaded?

Some of these questions may seem trivial but they are extremely important.

Unfortunately there are thousands of terms that are defined differently by

different users and data collectors. Some have different names but mean the same thing. The lack of standardization causes a great burden and workload for

the respondents of questionnaires, particularly from the Federal sector. The

Albert

2
problems of reporting to the President, the Congress, and the people are magnified.

We have all seen examples of different quantities of a particular fuel production

or a reserve being reported by different Federal groups.

The word standards alone covers a multitude of interests as regards energy:

safety, regulatory, data elements, computer /communications associated work,

scientific and technical terminology, building materials, weights and measures,

environmental, etc. As you all know, the problems of standardization are further

compounded because of the many diverse groups who must agree. Also, there are two

kinds of data and information with which we are concerned-- text and numeric.

How are we handling energy data and information today? What steps are we taking and what should we be doing towards the end of standardization which in

turn will make easier our overall task of solving the Nation's energy problems?

The bulk of energy-related numeric data is collected by the Federal Energy

Administration (FEA), the Bureau of Mines (BOM) and the Federal Power Commission

(FPC). Most of it is collected through the use of data collection forms which

may number close to 1000. Submission of many of these forms is required by law,

the others are submitted voluntarily. The number of data elements involved runs

in the thousands.

The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) contributes the

bulk of R&D or text-type information with additional amounts coming from the

National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and some others; this information derives from citations, abstracts, and bibliographies.

ERDA alone adds over 150,000 citations and abstracts a year just to its main

energy data base (there are over a million citations in the file now).

Most of the data, numeric or text, is input to computer readable files.

Unfortunately, in most cases, many of the files are unique, that is, there is

a lack of standards and standard methods. Any comparison, validation, and

cross-checking is extremely difficult if not impossible. Items have the same name but different definitions and vice versa.

However, we are beginning to see an understanding of these problems and

attempts to control the proliferation of data bases through the use of data

element dictionaries and data base management systems. Both FEA and FPC have

automated data dictionaries which contain descriptions of their data collection

forms, their systems, as well as the names of the data elements and their

definitions. These dictionaries are of two types: (1) a stand-alone dictionary,

and (2) a dictionary that helps drive the system.

ERDA has developed a subject thesaurus of scientific and technical terms and

is presently updating it. A data catalog and index to all energy-related data

bases and models available in ERDA is being prepared. ERDA has funded an Inter laboratory Working Group on Data Exchange (IWGDE) (Brookhaven, Los Alamos,

Oak Ridge, etc.) which, as one of its accomplishments, is establishing standards

for exchange of machine readable data between the laboratories. The definition

phase has been completed and implementation is ongoing of a hardware and content - independent standard and process for exchange of data via magnetic tape. A single

3 Albert
software program at each lab is being developed to create and interpret the tape

structure and labels; transfer and conversion of data will in the future be much

easier. The IWGDE is also involving itself in standards for geocoding and

consideration of documentation of existing ERDA graphics techniques.

For those interested in more detail, the proposed data exchange standard

was developed by the IWGDE as a generalization of the American National Standard

for Bibliographic Information Interchange on Magnetic Tape (ANSI Z39. 2-1971) and

the International Standard Documentation - Format for Bibliographic Information

Interchange on Magnetic Tape (ISO 2709-1973). The basic structures defined by

these standards were extended to accommodate the interchange of a wide variety of

information. In order to make the interchange files content - independent, a Data Description File (DDF) was added. The file contains control parameters and

data descriptions necessary to interpret data records and data elements. Thus a magnetic tape embodying this structure consists of three parts: (1) The Data

Description File (DDF), (2) The Data File (DF), and (3) The required tape labels.

FEA has developed an inventory called the "Federal Energy Information

Locator System". A document under that title was published which lists the more

than 40 bureaus and agencies, mentioned earlier, that have the over 200 different

energy-related programs.

Some of you may be familiar with the Federal Interagency Council on Energy

Information of which I am presently chairman. The Council consists of representatives

of 15 Federal agencies. We are concerned with policy and problems that concern

all aspects of energy information--how can we reduce duplication, how can we share,

how can we provide the right data on which to make decisions? Several working

groups are sponsored--one is concerned with the question of what and how much

energy information is really necessary in order for the Government to make policy

and decisions; another carried through a successful pilot program on the

feasibility of taking an inventory of all energy statistical and economic data

collected in the Federal Government (the project has now been referred to FEA for

full implementation); another has looked at the problem of proprietary data; and

another has been establishing the foundation of an extensive energy data standards

program. The standards project has just been referred to the new Department of

Energy (DOE) for implementation.

Let me say a word here regarding the pilot program concerned with the

feasibility of taking an inventory of all energy statistical and economic data

collected by the Federal Government. At first glance this might seem an impossible

task considering the many agencies involved with their proliferation of programs.

The concept for the overall task involved a three-phase approach: (1)

collect all data collection forms; (2) enter into an automated file all the data

element names with detail about the forms; and (3) collect and enter existing

data element definitions. The file could then be analyzed for duplication and

redundancy, and provide us a foundation for establishing standard data elements

and definitions.

Albert 4
The pilot program utilized approximately 90 forms from four different agencies.

It was quite successful and indicated a "doable" task in a reasonable length of

time with a reasonable amount of resources. As I mentioned, the project was referred to FEA, which began the work. This work will continue under the Energy

Information Administration group in the Department of Energy.

Let me talk a bit about the new Department. DOE officially comes into being

on October 1. Many of the agencies I mentioned will become part of D0E--ERDA,

FEA, FPC, and parts of BOM, DOI and DOD. By bringing them together we will have

grouped under one roof the main Federal elements that are responsible for the

Nation's energy policy, and implementing efforts to solve our energy problem. I think this will make the job easier.

There will be two main information programs in DOE --the Energy Information

Administration (EIA), and the Office of Technical Information (OTI). OTI will concern itself with scientific, technical, and engineering information. EIA

will concern itself with statistical and economic supply and demand related

information. There will also be various specialized information programs

associated with the DOE technological programs.

The standards project referred from the Interagency Council will be undertaken

by the EIA. It will involve standard terms, definitions, weights and measures,

and the promulgation of these standards. The OTI will work closely with EIA

concerning itself with work on standard terms, definitions, and measures related

to scientific and engineering data because of its experience and on-going work

in this area. The Interagency Council will coordinate and press for the adoption

of developed standards and help promulgate their use. Also, the work we are discussing will be coordinated with the National Bureau of Standards.

What I have described is a possible framework and plan on which to base the

energy information standardization program. A great deal of effort has gone into

developing this foundation and in bringing it to the attention of top officials.

Work has already begun which you will soon be hearing more about.

Along with this, in DOE, will be an expansion of various efforts to develop

knowledge of existing data and its quality; and to better manage its collection,

processing, and dissemination. DOE's data and information needs will range from

details of petroleum and natural gas supply and demand, to solar commercialization,

to environmental impacts in Alaska, to waste management, to water pollution, to transportation, and so on. Data quality and dissemination will be stressed to

allow much wider use by diverse audiences. As we all know, the job will be a difficult but necessary contribution to a solution to the problem of an adequate,

continuing, and economically feasible energy supply for this country.

Albert

5

Standardization of Data Elements and Machine-Readable

Symbol to Facilitate Blood Banking

Eric Brodheim, Sc.D.

Chairman, Committee for Commonality in

Blood Banking Automation

American Blood Commission

Standardization of data elements describing blood

products was an important requirement in introducing

machine-readable technology in order to improve the

safety and efficiency of blood banking operations.

This paper discusses some features of this effort and some of the implications for the broader hospital

patient care system.

Key words: Blood Banking; machine-readable symbols;

optical bar codes; standardization.

1. Introduction

As automated equipment is being introduced to improve the safety and

the economics of health care, there is a growing need to standardize data

elements and the symbols for representing these in machine-readable form. The

need in blood banking for this was recognized about three years ago by the

blood service community consisting of approximately six thousand establishments that collect, process and/or transfuse blood in the United States. This

paper discusses some features of this effort and some of the implications for

the broader hospital patient care system of which blood banking is only one

small sector.

The three national organizations that broadly represent the blood ser- vice community; namely, the American Association of Blood Banks, the American

National Red Cross and the Council of Community Blood Centers — jointly or- ganized the Committee for Commonality in Blood Banking Automation (CCBBA) to

undertake such a standardization effort. This project, which has continued

under the aegis of the recently created American Blood Commission, has developed and tested an approach for standardizing data elements pertaining to

blood products and their associated records in a compatible eye-readable and

machine-readable form.

2. Background Information

As each of the over 10 million annual whole blood donations is made, a unique identification number is assigned to the "unit" drawn, and Is affixed

to each of the associated blood bag labels, each of the pilot tubes containing blood samples for testing purposes and for each of the donation records.

7 Brodheim
A blood unit may be transfused as whole blood or can be divided into

components. The primary therapeutic components of blood are the red blood

cells, which are clinically useful for 21 days after collection; the plasma

which, if frozen following collection is usable for two years; platelets with

a useful life of 48 to 72 hours; leukocytes which have a clinically useful

life of approximately 6 hours and cryoprecipitate , containing the clotting

factors, which can be separated from the plasma and kept frozen until used.

During the time scale (usually measured in hours) required to separate

the various components and to distribute them to patients, a number of tests

must be performed on the blood samples that were collected at the time of

donation to check for indications of hepatitis, syphilis or unusual antibodies.

The donor records may also be processed against registries of donors whose

blood is, for various reasons, unsuitable for transfusion purposes. While all

of this is done the individual blood components must be labeled to indicate

their unique identification number, their ABO and Rh, the results of these

various tests and checks, the type of product and its expiration date.

Whole blood and red blood cells, which account for the vast majority of

transfusions are then delivered to transfusion services where they are maintained for compatibility checking (cross-matching) for possible transfusion

to individual recipients. On the average, three such compatibility tests

are performed and recorded before the unit is transfused.

In recording compatibility tests, both the unique identification of the

blood donation (linking back to the identification of the donor of the originating whole blood unit) as well as that of the possible recipient needs to

be preserved and associated. In transfusion services where there is a significant volume of compatibility checking there is always a possibility of a mix-up whereby the wrong blood unit or a unit that has not been fully tested

for compatibility is delivered for transfusion to a patient. Despite elaborate manual checks to prevent such occurrences, there are human lapses which

cause extremely serious and even fatal results.

The desire to improve safety and to reduce the labor and cost of the

necessary record keeping has Led the blood banking community to seek the use

of automation. This has brought about the need to standarize the data

elements involved. While most of this effort has currently been in the processing of blood it will invariably move through the transfusion service to

the patient's bedside where it will be used to verify that the proper blood

products are being administered to the patient. This has obvious parallels to

the identification and the clinical testing of all types of samples from

patients leading to the verification of proper medications being administered.

3. Standardization Effort in Blood Banking

The data elements pertaining to a blood product that have been standardized are the following:

(1) the unique identification of the donation;

(2) the identification of the specific product including

volume and expiration date;

(3) the identification of the results of the testing and

screening performed on the blood sample and on the

donor

.

The manner in which these data elements have been standardized and are represented on blood products in machine-readable form is discussed below.

The physical placement of the labels containing these data elements is

performed in stages, and is illustrated in figure 1. The unique unit number

Brodheim 8
identification is applied at the time that the whole blood donation is made.

The label identifying the product, separated into a particular satellite bag,

is applied once that product has been separated. The testing - disposition

label is affixed after all laboratory testing and registry checking is com- pleted and/or the unit is released for possible transfusion.

The placement of the above data elements in machine-readable form on a fully labeled blood product is illustrated in figure 2. The specific placement of machine-readable identification on the bag was selected to facilitate

compatibility between manual and automated operations and to accommodate the

many diverse manual and automated protocols in use.

3.1. Unique Identification of Donation

In order to uniquely identify a unit of blood within the United States

two consecutive pieces of information are necessary. The first identifies

the location where the donation was made. The second is a donation number

which is unique within that location.

Each U.S. blood drawing location is identified by a unique five-digit

number which is assigned by the FDA's Bureau of Biologies. This is preceded

by a two-digit code which identifies the drawing location as being within

the United States making up a seven-digit registration number. Informal

discussions are underway for other countries to coordinate the assignment of

the two-digit "region" codes internationally.

In all cases the machine-readable donation number will be a seven-digit

number which coupled with the seven-digit registration number gives a fourteendigit number that will be unique throughout any part of the world adopting

this system. For the benefit of the many smaller collection centers there is

the option to eliminate leading zeros in eye-readable form. Since many blood

centers utilize alphanumeric designations (which are felt to be desirable for

manual use) provision is made for the first two digits to be represented by

one or two alphabetic characters in accordance with Table 1.

The American Red Cross has 57 regional blood centers, collects approximately 50% of the blood in the U.S. and operates under a single national

license. All of these centers have individual registration numbers which are differentiated in machine-readable form. However, in order to maintain com- patibility with existing manual systems and to fit in with the identification

scheme for the American Red Cross, a two-digit center code (which redundantly

conveys the same information as the unique registration number for that center) is added at the beginning of the unit identification number in eyereadable form. This is illustrated in figure 3 which shows the various options for unit number representation.

Figure 3 also gives examples of some of the different unit number

configurations and the way these are organized in pads. Each of the 50 sheets

of a pad corresponds to one unique set of identification numbers. These are either in eye- and machine-readable form suitable for use on sample test

tubes, on blood bags or on machine-readable donor records; or they are only in

eye-readable form suitable for use on donation records and on test tubes where

machine readability is not required.

3.2. Identification of Product

The product identification code is made up of five characters. The

first three characters are used to identify the particular product. The

fourth character identifies the anticoagulant in which the blood is collected

or the method of preparation of a component. The fifth character on an empty

bag identifies the type of container in which whole blood is collected

9

Brodheim
Table 1. Alphabetic unit number prefix option

FIRST LETTER - Primarily used to designate

centers in a region.

Blank F G K L

C 00 20 40 60 80

E 01 21 41 61 81

F 02 22 42 62 82

G 03 23 43 63 83

H 04 24 44 64 84

J 05 25 45 65 85

K 06 26 46 66 86

SECOND LETTER - L 07 27 47 67 87

M 08 28 48 68 88

Primarily used to

designate mobiles N 09 29 49 69 89

from a given center . P 10 30 50 70 90

Q 11 31 51 71 91

R 12 32 52 72 92

S 13 33 53 73 93

T 14 34 54 74 94

V 15 35 55 75 95

W 16 36 56 76 96

X 17 37 57 77 97

Y 18 38 58 78 98

Z 19 39 59 79 99

Example : 04 translates to H

0413897 translates to H13897

6413897 translates to KH13897

(i.e., in a single bag to be used for whole blood, a double bag to be separated into whole blood and plasma, or bags with more compartments for sterile

separation into up to five separate transfusable components) . When the bag

contains 2 separated components, the fifth character indicates the volume of

the contained product. This product code logic is summarized in Table 2.

The date of collection is also required since, together with the identification of the product, it defines the expiration date. Typical product

labels are shown in figure 4.

Brodheim 10
Table 2. Product code assignment logic

DIGITS 1-3 DIGIT 4 DIGIT 5 Whole Blood & Red Blood

Cell Products Pre-printed

on Primary Bag Label

Product Code Anticoagulant Package Code

Empty Satellite Bag

Pre-printed on Satellite

Bag Label

000 0 Package Code

Whole Blood & Red Blood

Cell Product Labels

Product Code Anticoagulant Volume Code

Component Product Labels Product Code Method of Preparation Code

Volume Code

Blank Product Label 099 0 1

3.3. Identification of Testing and Screening Results

In the vast majority of cases the testing - disposition information is

conveyed by a label that indicates that the unit meets all FDA testing

requirements and gives the blood group and type (see figure 5) . There are a number of exceptions. There is provision for the "emergency release" of products without all tests or checks being completed, in which case the tests

done are indicated manually on an emergency release label. In situations

where blood is donated by a patient in advance of anticipated surgery and is

to be reinfused into the same individual there is provision to so identify

the unit by another special label. There are also labels for identifying

units that are defective in some manner and therefore not suitable for normal

transfusion; or units where tests results indicate the possiblity of hepatitis,

syphilis or antibodies and are therefore being held for further testing.

Finally, there are special labels for use on units detected to be positive for

hepatitis or syphilis which must be suitably disposed of.

4. Machine-Readable Features

In automated operations it is necessary to provide security that the

proper information is being read. For this reason, unique control codes are placed before and after all data elements. The control code assignments are shown in Table 3.

In some instances it is necessary in the interest of safety to require

that certain data elements be read with a single pass of the light pen. For

instance, it is important that unit number and blood type are read together

to provide ultimate assurance that the bag is properly labeled. This is of

utmost importance since if it is mislabeled this can cause a fatal transfusion reaction. Other data is placed to be read at the same time in the

interest of efficiency and convenience.

11 Brodheim
Table 3. Control code assignments for the CCBBA simplified blood bag labels.

START

CONTROL

CODE DATA

STOP

CONTROL

CODE USED FOR USED ON

aO 7 digit FDA Reg. # lb Numeric Unit Number Bag Label

al 7 digit FDA Reg. # lb Alphanumeric Unit

Number

a$ 3 digit dating

method*

d Machine-readable

Collection Date

Collection

Time Label

a8 5 digit dating

method**

d Machine-readable

Collection Time and

Date

aO 5 digit blood

product code

number

2b Blood Product on Bag Label

Bag Label

aO 5 digit blood

product code

number

3b Blood Product on Product Label

Product Label

d XX** * $b No Typing Performed Bag Label

d 51 Ob 0 Positive Grouping Labels

d 62 Ob A Positive

d 73 Ob B Positive

d 84 Ob AB Positive

d 95 Ob 0 Negative

d 06 Ob A Negative

d 17 Ob B Negative

d 28 Ob AB Negative

d 39 Ob Hold for Further

Processing

Grouping Labels

d 40 Ob For Autologous Use

Only

d 4- Ob Not For Transfusion

d 5$ Ob Biohazard

d 7+ Ob Emergency Use Only

d 7 digit unit

number

d Identification of

Blood Bags and

Sample Tubes

Unit Number Label

* Julian 3 digit method for indicating day of year

** The first 3 digits use Julian method for indicating day of year and the

last 2 digits indicate hour of day in military time.

*** xx = 2 digits: the first indicates anticoagulant code and the second

digit indicates the package code.

Brodheim

12
The CODABAR optical bar code was selected primarily because it seemed

to offer the maximum security and had the capacity for being added to in

stages. A modification was made to add a "pause" code to indicate the beginning and end of a specific label. Early tests show that without this un- reliable reading was obtained especially as labels became worn. With this

logic, a bag is always machine-readable regardless of its state in labeling.

5. Remaining Problems

The emphasis to date has been in the automation of the blood collection,

processing and distribution operations. The next phase is to standardize

those data elements pertaining to the operation of a transfusion service.

This will lead to the last phase of making provision for the automation of the

bedside transfusion operations. This gives the ultimate safety payoff of

verifying that the proper blood products are being transfused.

These steps must be performed in sequence. It is not feasible for the

transfusion service to automate unless they receive blood labeled in a common machine-readable form from their one or more supplying blood centers. It is

further not feasible to automate at the bedside unless the transfusion service

is automated so that it is able to record the blood product-patient identifications and compatibility testing results and send blood units to the bedside

with a machine-readable identification that can be matched against the

identification of the patient.

It is at this point that the transfusion service becomes an integral

part of the patient care system of the hospital. It is clearly undesirable

to identify a hospital patient in one way for blood banking operations and in

another way for other aspects of the patient care systems. With unit dose

packaging of medication being widely implemented it is clear that the same concept of checking to insure that the proper blood products are being administered can be applied to insure the proper administration of any medication.

Similarly, the need to insure the integrity of the blood samples taken from a patient for testing blood compatibility is similar for samples taken from the

patient for any other type of testing.

CCBBA has attempted to enlist the support of the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) , the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other interested

parties in controlling the indiscriminate introduction of a multitude of

machine-readable codes into the hospital environment. NBS did co-sponsor a very useful meeting at this facility but never followed up on this. Liaison

representatives from the American Medical Association and the AHA have taken

part in CCBBA meetings. While some constructive interaction has resulted,

the AHA has so far not responded to suggestions by the American Blood Commission to engage in a broad based effort of setting criteria for data elements

and for machine-readable symbols in the overall patient care system.

Faced with a clear and present need , the CCBBA could not wait an indeterminate period for the evolution of broad-based patient related identification

criteria but had to carry out its commitment to introduce a system suitable

for blood banking. Before too many years pass, its efforts will be evident

at the bedside of the patient. There is legitimate concern for compatibility

with other potential patient identification systems. It is in the public

interest that this problem should be addressed and we feel that it would be

appropriate that the National Bureau of Standards exercise a position of

leadership in bringing this about.

13 Brodhe im
Unit

Number

Label

4

t

Brodheim 14

Figure

1.

Placement

of

labels

on

satellite

bag

label
2

-PRODUCT CODE- 9 CHARACTERS

CHARACTERS 5 CHARACTERS

START CODE BLOOD PRODUCT CODE

1 CHARACTER 2 CHARACTERS

PACKAGE CODE STOP CODE

COLLECTION TIME - 8 CHARACTERS OR 6 CHARACTERS

2 CHARACTERS

START CODE

| 3 CHARACTERS

JULIAN DAY OF YEAR

\

2 CHARACTERS

HOUR OF DAY

1 CHARACTER

PAUSE CODE

(0-24 omitted for 6 character version)

2

COLLECTION CENTER CODE - 11 CHARACTERS

/

CHARACTERS

i 2 CHARACTERS 5 CHARACTERS 2 CHARACTERS ^

START CODE NATION OR REGISTRATION STOP CODE

REGION CODE NUMBER

Figure 2. Placement of Machine-Readable Information on Blood Bags

15 Brodheim
729991 6 7299916

729991 6 7299916

729991 6 7299916

im

uni

6 7299916

in mini

1 i ll! II III III

729991

ii inn

6 7299916

7299916 11299916

72999 6 11299916

7299916 i1299916

Mill H

1299916

iiiiii

7299916 1 111 II

'299916

Numbering Variations on Unit Number Labels

72 H 99916

Zeros suppressed Red Cross Centers

for smaller centers

6 99916

Alpha characters to conform with

existing systems

7299916

Full Numbers

lor larger centers

Figure 3. Unit Number Set Variations

Brodheim 16
CPD RED BLOOD CELLS SINGLE DONOR PLASMA

LIQUID

III ill II llllllllll

CPD WHOLE BLOOD

Volume ml. PLATELET CONCENTRATE

llllllllll —— llllllllll

Figure 4. Representative Product Labels

17 Brodheim
Brodheim 18

Figure

5.

Testing

and

Grouping

Labels
A Technical Profile of

Representative Government Developed

Data Element Dictionary /Directory Systems

Paul Brown

U. S. Civil Service Commission

Washington, D. C. 20415

There are many different perspectives on the use

of data element dictionaries (DED)s to manage data

resources. Those who intend to use DED technology

to manage data resources can benefit from the experience of those who are already attempting to do so. An organization can evaluate its own data resource management needs and then compare them to those of

other organizations with similar environments. It can then evaluate and select approaches which have

already been proven in use. As long as requirements

are first carefully defined, an intelligent choice

can be made from among alternative ways of implementing a DED. These are whether to buy, to borrow, or

to design the DED from the ground-up.

Key words: Data resource management; data element

dictionary; data element directory; data element

dictionary /directory ; requirements definition;

software selection.

1. Introduction

Because of my association with the FIPS Task Group 17 (TG 17) "Data

Element Dictionary /Directories" survey of government DED's, I have been

asked to share some of my observations with you. The survey has since been

published as NBS Special Publication 500-16.

Well, over the past two years I've learned at least one thing. That is

that there are as many conceptions of what data element dictionaries (DED)s

should do as there are people using them. Everyone who can potentially

benefit from a DED-systems analysts, forms and reports managers, data base

administrators, computer programmers and others-have their own particular

19 Brown
viewpoint on data elements and data resource management. After examining

the systems submitted to TG 17, one might expect that I could stand here

and tell you which DED's do their jobs best or which are failures. Well

I can't. Nor can I tell you which features of a DED are indispensable or which should be avoided.

Because of the multiplicity of tasks expected of a DED and the difference in the data management philosophies and needs of different organizations,

TG 17 realized very early that the creation of a standard or recommended DED

was an impractical goal. We felt that there were too many variables affecting

the data management requirements of differing organizations which we could

not adequately provide for in a standard.

However, since one of the original tasks outlined for TG 17 was a look at some actual live government DED systems, it was decided to use the survey to

point out features of DED'S that others have found useful so that if an organization decided to implement a DED to help in managing data it wouldn't have to

completely reinvent the wheel. Thus, the concept of a guideline replaced that

of a standard.

2. Scope of the Survey

What is a DED? There was apparently a great deal of confusion on the part

of those who initially responded to the survey as to what would be included by

Task Group 17 in its survey of DED systems. Fifty percent of the systems

described in the material initially sent to TG 17, although they were related

to data management and/or systems design, were not considered DED's from an overall data resource mangement point of view. That is, they did not describe

data elements and relate them to their use in the organizational environment.

It is of interest to list some of the kinds of systems submitted to it that TG

17 chose not to include in the DED survey. These systems were excluded because

they were not considered to be generalized data resource management tools of

potential interest to those whose primary interest is the management of data

resources. These included: data definition files for use with retrieval or report generation packages; bibliographic systems; and lists of elements whose

primary purpose was to help in the design of a single system or application.

Conceptual DED's and those which were in the planning stage were also excluded

because we wanted the survey to reflect the "real world" and also, as we discovered, there was a disconcerting tendency for such planned systems never to

materialize.

Brown 20
TG 17 recognized that various terms have been applied to DED type systems

more or less interchangeably. Such terms as "dictionary" which implies definition, "directory" which implies location, "dictionary/directory" implying some combination of the two, and "catalogue" which connotes a list or description,

have been, and continue to be used to describe, if not categorize, data management tools. Because no system we examined could be classified exclusively

under any of the terms, TG 17 decided that for our purposes it would be better

to think of these terms as capabilities of, rather than classes of, systems.

These capabilities are present to one degree or another in most data management

systems. The functions of a catalogue, dictionary and directory, particularly

in more sophisticated DED's, are combined. Incidentally the task group quickly

abandoned an effort to substitute the term, "data resource directory" (DRD),

as a more precise term to describe a sophisticated DED. The details are just

too gruesome to mention and we found ourselves adrift in a sea of semantics.

There seems to be an almost evolutionary process that leads from the implementation of one of these capabilities to another. There is and has been

an instinctive tendency to first list, then define, and finally locate and

describe in detail the uses to which data elements are put. It should be noted

at this point that these capabilities of a DED don't have to be automated. In fact, TG 17 sees no problem whatever in using a well maintained manual system

if it meets the needs of the implementor. The task group felt very strongly

that we were not really trying to describe or compare software, but to describe

total systems with certain common attributes.

3. Characteristics of Surveyed DED's

What are the informational components that TG 17 felt should be included

in a DED? TG 17 identified eleven entities that can be relevant to an organization's use and management of data resources. Our look at the surveyed

systems was in part a comparison against this model subset to see which of the

entities had been considered and incorporated by implementors of DED systems.

Just to mention them, the entities identified by TG 17 are, in descending

hierarchical sequence: Plans /Programs , Systems, Applications, Procedures,

Files, Records, Data Elements, Reports, Forms, and finally, Documents. How

does the scope of government developed systems compare to that described by TG

17? In general, as the experience of the implementor and the number of data

elements managed increased, the DED systems tended to address more of the

entities regarded as significant by TG 17. This seems to suggest that the

greater the number of elements used within an organization, the greater the

need to document what managers and technicians need to know about them.

21 Brown
However, the realization of exactly what information a particular organization

really needs to know about its data seems to develop over time and often after

some hands-on experience with a more or less unsophisticated DED . At least

two respondents told TG 17 that trying to achieve sophistication in one great

leap, especially where an organization's resources are limited, tends to bog

down development and to hinder achievement of what should be principal objectives.

For those who like statistics, the average system surveyed addressed five

of the relevant data management entities that TG 17 identified. Only one system addressed all eleven. Five of the systems had interactive query or update capability, and four had been implemented with data base management system

software. One of them was a manual system. At least two systems have been

significantly changed since NBS Special Publication 500-16 was printed. Four

of the systems described have been transported to more than one installation.

4. Some Notes on DED Implementation

For those who decide that an automated DED is for them, the decision to

make or buy can be crucial to successful implementation. I wish I could give

you hard and fast rules about this decision but without knowing individual

cases this would be impossible. There are both failures and successes for

ground up in-house DED's, for generalized systems developed by commercial vendors, and for efforts to transfer DED's from one government agency to another.

Two experiences illustrate the pitfalls involved. One user organization we

talked to attempted to implement a commercial system, but had to abandon it

and write a less ambitious in-house system because the powerful features

offered by the selected commercial system got in the way of the basic capabilities that the user really needed. The designer of the commercial system had

a different perspective of the problems of data control than the user had.

On the other hand, an analyst associated with an effort to build an in-house

DED indicated that if he had it to do over again he would buy, because his

in-house effort tended to grow in scope until it exceeded practical limits.

I guess my own personal philosophy on DED implementation can be summed up

in two points. First, it makes sense to buy if your requirements are well-defined before you sit down to talk to various salesman and if you can then find

a ready-made system that fits your needs. Remember though, it is going to cost

you enough in resources to do what you need without implementing bells and whistles and collecting data that you don't need. The effort to design a data

management system should be no different from that involved In building any

Brown 22
other system. It should stem from careful requirements definition and sound

functional statements. A commercial package or one obtained from another

implementor can be a great cost and time saver if it is truly responsive to

your organization's needs, and not just a solution looking for a problem. On

the other hand, an in-house effort must have realistic and well defined

objectives or it will wander around gathering irrelevancies until it falls of

its own weight.

The second point of my personal philosophy is that I favor a "start smallgain experience" approach to data management. Set realistic initial goals so that you can make a successful step-by-step effort to identify, document, and

control your data resources. I think it is true that most managers would

rather see a small successful step into data management than a large failure.

Collect only the metadata that you have a stated need for, not all that you

think you may be able to eventually use.

5. Conclusion

Those starting out on the road to documenting and managing data use at the

present time can draw on a wealth of experience-some impressive and some not so impress ive-that was not available a few years ago. Draw as heavily as possible

on this experience but remember, above all, to be careful that you are really

solving your own problems and not problems relevant only to someone else's

organization. If I had been asked 3 years ago what I would include in a DED,

I would have given a very different answer than the one I would give today. I do know that it was helpful for me to read what literature was available and to

look at existing systems for those features that seemed to me to be applicable

to solving ray own problems. The knowledge gained from my own experience and

the experiences of those participating in this survey has at least broadened my

perspectives on data management. I hope that what TG 17 has done will do the same for many of you.

23 Brown
1
Cargo Data interchange System (CARD IS)

Robert J. Cavanaugh

Manager, Information Systems

International Sales Division

General Electric Company

New York, New York

Co-Chairman of CARD IS Standards Committee

National Committee on International Trade Documentation

New York, New York

Abstract

CARDIS is a system concept for a Cargo Data

Interchange System to electronically exchange International

trade data. Being sponsored by the National Committee on

International Trade Documentation. NCITD is a non-profit,

privately financed, membership organization dedicated to

simplifying and improving international trade documentation

procedures, including information exchange by either paper

or electronic methods.

Current methods of international trade information

exchange is slow, with shipment documentation frequently

arriving later than the cargo, thus delaying customs clear- ance and delivery to the ultimate consignee. Furthermore,

preparation of paper documents is time consuming and very

expensive because of the many documents used, and the

repetitive use of the same data elements over and over

again.

CARDIS will utilize modern technology including

electronic communications transmitting data at high speeds,

computer storing, sorting, retreiving, selecting data and

formats, directing the transmission and the printing of

required documents when and where needed . This will

reduce delays now encountered at exchange points thus

reducing costs involved with extra warehousing and handling expenses, clerical effort, errors and associated costs

involved in current manual documentation systems in which

the same data is entered many times for separately produced forms.

25

Cavanaugh
There will be three types of CARDIS centers to serve

all industry and government needs. Type 1 centers will

provide common user database facilities, store and forward

message switching services and provide the mechanism by

which the CARDIS network is tied together and operates as

a coherent information handling system. Satellite type 2

centers will provide services to multiple users. This could

be a major forwarder with a number of shipper clients or a service bureau servicing small forwarders and other shippers . Type 3 centers will provide direct links from a

single major user who is able to provide his own computer

facility and prefers to deal directly with the shipping

information process. Subscribers to CARDIS will be re- quired to use only those services which would complement

their own systems and capabilities . Subscribers will be

billed only for services used.

Text

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I am Bob Cavanaugh, Manager

of Information Systems for the International Sales Division of the

General Electric Company. In addition, I serve as Co-Chairman of

NClTD's CARDIS Standards Committee with my friend and colleague

John Greene, Vice President of General Steamship Corporation, Ltd.,

San Francisco.

It is in the latter category that I speak to you today.

As Bob Porter has just informed you, the National Committee on

International Trade Documentation is the industry supported organization dedicated to facilitating trade. NCITD is made up of many

different individuals who represent 250 companies that are involved in our international trade. Bob and the Slide Show, “Linking You To Trade

Profits ' 1 , have amply covered the Who , What , When , Where and How

NCITD has tamed the Paper Tiger over the past 10 years. My part in this program is to update you on the progress NCITD is making on the

CARDIS project, and (for prospective) to give you an insight on how

we at General Electric plan on making use of this Cargo Data

interchange System. Let's get started.

The technology involved in transporting our goods in containers

has expanded faster than our ability to cope with the documentation

problems. In fact, the efficient and speedy movement of the container was held up because of the paperwork problem that Bob discussed.

Often ships sail and the cargo remains on the dock due to our inability

to provide documentation on time and where needed. As a result of our

study, we indicated that there were certain elements that had to be

Cavanaugh 26
reckoned with in order to attack this horrendous problem. We first had

to:

o Identify o Eliminate o Simplify

o Standardize

We had to examine the practices, procedures, laws, etc. to develop

the programs and methods to get at this very difficult problem area. As a result of our indepth study, we developed programs, showed

expected results, and developed a work plan to carry out our projects.

An example of this was the problem involved between a shipper in one

country and a customer in another overseas country. We questioned

why it was necessary to process title shipping documents via so many

individual parties in the banking community. The rapid movement of

the freight indicates that they should be transmitted direct from the

shipper to the consignee. As a result of this need our financial and

insurance committee published the recommendations to importers and

banks explaining how documentation could be simplified within the

financial community.

The U.S. standard master, whether produced on a typewriter or on a computer, can provide many of the basic documents on a single one run system. Furthermore, through the efforts of our executive

director, working through the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, our U.S. standard master was made compatible with the ECE

layout key. This gave worldwide recognition and acceptance of this

format.

In addition to the bill of lading we are now able to produce the

dock receipt, drawback forms, shipper's export declaration, certificate

of origin, insurance certificate, etc. It is safe to say that over 95% of

all export shipments leaving the United States by vessel are shipped on

an ocean bill of lading compatible with U.S. standard master. To

further simplify this matter a special clausing was developed and now

constitutes a shipper provided bill of lading. This eliminates the

necessity for each ocean carrier providing his own verbiage on individual, separate forms.

NClTD's success with these and other programs explained by Bob

Porter, make computerization a practicality. This was first brought

about through the efforts of NCITD. In 1969 legislation was passed by

the Congress of the United States which permitted the filing of the

U.S. shipper's export declaration on magnetic tape, punch card, or paper tape on a monthly summary basis. (GE was one of the first to do this). That is what taming the paper tiger was all about.

Our efforts have, by no means, been limited to our own shores.

Our executive director makes quarterly trips as the industry representative to the U.S. delegation to the meetings of the ECE, the United

Nations organization charged with international trade facilitation.

Furthermore, there have been many sister organizations like NCITD

27

Cavanaugh
formed throughout the world. Having arranged the data in recognized

standard positions has greatly reduced the language barriers of the

past. All are adopting NClTD's approach to streamlining international

trade documentation through elimination, simplification, standardization

and computerization. These elements have also been linked together by

our trading partners throughout the world. We can report that much

has been accomplished these past 10 years in reducing this paperwork

burden. Now to relate this to our own environment at General Electric.

Long ago we recognized that the documents involved in our export

business were much more complicated than our domestic invoices for the same products. The complex interrelationships of various organizations

and functions performed within the International Sales Division required

considerable effort evaluating and reevaluatingbfour business systems.

Through the efforts of the past 20 years, we have been able to bring

order to this interrelationship through our computerized export documentation system called the export system. In 1958 we started

computerizing our export documentation. We are now working on our

fourth generation.

The export services organization acts as an interface between our

domestic product departments, the overseas customer and our

International Sales Division. Our orders range from simple AC motors

to major turnkey power plants, with sales in practically every country

of the world. Export Services is mainly concerned with the customer's

order being properly placed at our General Electric product departments

or outside vendors. They then arrange shipment of the material and

supply the data for preparation of the necessary export documents,

which in turn are distributed in accordance with the customer's instructions. The new system must parallel the new needs of our business

which have changed substantially in General Electric both internally and

externally. Furthermore, the technology is now available to overcome

our major limitations.

Our new system will provide remote printing of documents, remote

on-line entry, remote inquiry. Terminals will be located at the

product departments . Our people have come up with an acronym for

the new export system, which spells ACCESS. ACCESS means

Automated and Comprehensive Customer Export Service System.

ACCESS will be communications oriented , responsive to user needs,

abreast of the State-of-the-Art and be flexible to meet various user needs - but by no means all . It cannot do the whole job for GE by

itself. To better understand why not, let's take a look at the problem.

Today we have a transportation system which has the capability,

notwithstanding the legal and governmental restrictions, of being very

efficient with containerization, intermodal shipping, air cargo, etc. This transportation network goe., international also. The problem we

face is that this highly effective infrastructure for our transcontinental

and international movement of freight has matured over many years.

However with today's worldwide economy, the question arises whether

we can allow the same maturing cycle to happen in our trade documentation development. It seems we should be using modern technology

like computers, to accelerate this development. In particular each of us

in doing our share of trade documentation should have an overall long

term plan.

Cavanaugh

28

am
To be cost effective we must mutually exchange data whenever

possible thus minimizing the most error prone and costly re-entry of

data throughout the cycle. In addition each of us in our own systems

has to look continually for the best possible cost benefit ratio. In many cases we might be abie to find significant value added services

that could be handled much better on a pooled or shared basis.

Today our computer systems output paper. Lots and lots of

paper. This is the most inefficient and ineffective way to use computers. That is, like large, old fashioned printing presses. In fact,

if we looked at today's integrated computer systems you will find that

the method of integration, in more cases than not, is paper.

Undoubtedly there are some of you, like us in General Electric, who are doing a limited amount of data communications. However, it is generally

still on a very selected and point-to-point basis. CARDIS or the Cargo

Data Interchange System being proposed must parallel and work in conjunction with our cargo handling systems. To do this effectively we

have to build upon our physical distribution systems and integrate our

data manipulation systems with them. This means they must be:

o Capable of decentralized operation, and yet,

o Highly integrated.

In addition, we must allow the normal marketplace options that are very

common to us in the physical distribution area. That is:

o Looking for the best return on investment,

o Looking for the best services, and

o Having the ability to use multiple vendors.

We must in effect establish our Cargo Data Interchange in an evolutionary manner, plus insure it is integrated with our transportation

worldwide scheme. Our information flow cannot tie up our transportation network as it does today.

It has always been NClTD's objective to build upon the paper

handling improvements and achieve computerization. This overall

project was given the acronoym CARDIS . CARDIS stands for Cargo

Data Interchange System. CARDIS is the means to apply U.S. business

systems computer technology and experience to the jungle of trade

documentation. It keys itself upon the entering of data only once and

the electronic data interchange of all required data to those who need it throughout the entire cycle of international trade. CARDIS has

ambitious goals and many problems to be resolved, since international

trade is intertwined with many countries national rules and regulations.

CARDIS has many features. One major requirement is to interface

with other systems , such as in-house applications like our ACCESS

system and overseas systems like the LACES system at London's

Heathrow Airport. Another major feature was the requirement to provide the capability for value added services. These services could

extend from pooled transoceanic data communication networks to currency conversion aids. In summary, CARDIS was the "final" link in NClTD's chain for attacking the trade documentation problem.

29 Cavanaugh
Before we go sailing off into the wild blue yonder on the theory,

it might be a good idea to take a look at the practical capabilities of

such a system concept by looking at a demonstration. This demonstration is possible, because of the work that has already been done at producing aligned forms in the paper world. This particular demonstration would be output oriented. A key to the output will be the

U.S. standard master as developed by NCITD. This particular format

has multiple purpose capability. Our demonstration will highlight the

building of information by data entered only once. Appropriate data

interchange via computers will produce the necessary paperwork re- quired to move the material by our transportation system.

We will start this demonstration at the beginning. Most of the

data originates with the shipper preparing the domestic inland bill of

lading. We will follow material movement by various supporting documents, plus the commercial invoice. The commercial invoice can be

aligned with the U.S. standard master, or the new floating field

concept, which is much more suitable for computerization. The aligned

bill of lading can be produced from the data supplied by the various

parties. Because of time limitations, there are many action documents

that we will not demonstrate tomorrow morning. It should be clearly

understood that they can be produced not only when needed but

where needed. However, the objective remains to eliminate the need of

paperworK. This is particularly true for the U.S. shipper's export

declaration and the notification of exportation for duty drawback.

Included in this demonstration will be the retention of the data thus

allowing for the production of the ship's manifest.

The input to this demonstration will be terminal oriented in conversational mode to illustrate low volume data entry . Data transmission with existing business systems will be the normal way for data

interchange when the parties involved are computerized. The demonstration will use coding to speed up the input of the data and to highlight the capabilities of some of the value added services. These can be performed by various CARDIS rated centers , by in-house

business computer systems , or by service bureaus . The demonstration

will also highlight some of the tracing features that the system will be

capable of providing. We will conduct the demonstration on an informal

basis, this afternoon from 2:00 until 5:15 p.m. and tomorrow morning

from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Until recently, CARDIS could have been thought of as another

good old U.S., long term, simplistic answer to a global problem. But

CARDIS research was started a couple of years ago under the U.S.

Department of Transportation sponsorship. In the United States a study to show the concept was technically feasible in total, left the

impression that one very large physical computer system was being

planned. (The bull really flew then). Also many legal and security

considerations were not being resolved as fast as computers and

systems were being planned. Finally the idea of satellites and worldwide telecommunication networks started to raise some feasibility

questions in people's minds. Not technically, but economically.

Because the dollars were going up seemingly very fast and the savings were not being clearly defined. Also, internationally, meetings with the

Economic Commission for Europe and other trading partners somehow

Cavanaugh 30
conveyed the immediacy and completeness of our research. To that

extent U.S. CARDIS was pictured to be a problem -- and a very near term problem at that. All in ail, the CARDIS programs had many

problems. Thus a halt to the headlong charge was inevitable. It is NClTD's plan that order will come out of recasting the program to a more durable and logical cycle.

Let us look at this plan from the standards point of view.

CARDIS must serve the needs of both business and government. In order to ensure this we need an overall system concept. This overall

concept will also ensure the integration of each of the parties in the

NCITD chain to break the documentation bottleneck. CARDIS should,

and in fact, must work with our in-house systems in a positive and

supportive role. The standards of a CARDIS concept should increase

the value of automated systems within the served businesses. The goal

of CARDIS is to keep the production of documents to the minimum

number that are necessary to support the legal and governmental requirements for international trade. The standards are being developed to allow an evolutionally introduction of the CARDIS concept into our

business information systems. The key to any standards activities

starts at the basic data element level. Additional standards work must

be done on the computerized versions of required documents.

Foreign requirements for data interchange must be actively and constructively factored into our U.S. standards. We must ensure data

compatibility and interchangeability between the various parties in the

international trade transaction. For the forseeable future, we must

integrate with the paperwork currently required. CARDIS is our long

range plan to make it work for us in the United States. We need

each of your company's cooperation and active participation . There is a

lot of work yet to be done if we are to succeed.

In total here is the CARDIS approach towards the development and

issuance of standards. First of all you must define all the trading

requirements at the document level so that it can be tied into today's

requirements. Data elements necessary to produce the document on a computer must be identified. Finally, we must provide the procedures

for the data interchange of those elements. Once the computerized

procedures and documents are developed, they must be continually

coordinated internationally to ensure the long term life cycle of the

CARDIS concept. Meanwhile we intend to integrate with the

Transportation Data Coordinating Committee the data elements and interchange requirements of the CARDIS concept. We want these requirements to be factored into their EDI protocol . In a parallel procedure,

we will be integrating with ANSI and the ISO via the National

Bureau of Standards . In addition, the CARDIS standards will definitely

support the concept of a multi level decentralized CARDIS centers , including qualified in-house systems . The key here is not a large

system and not one data base. Data should be entered only once and

made available under a distributed data base concept according to the

legal , security and company requirements of the parties involved.

Finally we will support this development of the value-added

CARDIS centers . Some of the value added services that we see include

trade reference libraries, associated master files and related

31 Cavanaugh
services as indicated . In addition we look for a value added service of

cost effective international data communications . And finally we look

for “pooled services 8 ' for the economic processing of the needs of

small shippers and freight forwarders for the cost effective preparation

of the required trade documents.

In the past I am sure each of you continually tried to benefit from

NClTD's activities. GE has. I think you can see where computerization by an evolutionary long term plan can save your company significant overhead expenses. Just look at your uncompetitive bids, your

capital lockup in blocked freight, receivables or inventory. NCITD

needs you in this, as in its other activities. Together, we can link

your company to improve trade by the effective use of

computerization -- and help our national goals at the same time.

In conclusion, most U.S. industry and our government are quite

concerned about the direction and speed of the U.S. economic growth.

G.E. is, of course, quite vocal in this area. Dr. Thomas A.

Vanderslice who is our Vice President and Group Executive of many of our high technology industries, including Information Services Business

Division (ISBD), has been highlighting to various audiences the key

that technological innovation has to play in the growth of the U.S.

economy. In particular, he has recently stressed the fundamental

relationship of technology, including computer technology, in relationship to increased productivity . This is especially true in the

highly competitive worldwide markets where so much of the growrth in the world's gross national product is expected.

To see the value of technology, let us look back at the statistics

of the period 1950 through 1974. This is a period where we had

seemingly unsurmountable technological leadership, with corresponding

advantages in our products and processes. If we compare the U.S.

industries according to their technological content, we first find that

the high technology base industries grew almost three times faster . The growth in productivity , or the output per employee in these high

technology industries was doubled . Conversely, the price records

reflected a 6 to 1 ratio of the higher effects that inflation had on the

low technology industries. An even more significant finding was that

gains in output per employee was not at the expense of employment. In fact, employment in high technology industries grew almost 9

times faster . Finally, the same kind of favorable ratios prevailed in the

terms of international trade with a positive contribution to our

balance of payment situation .

There have been changes since 1974 and one of the most significant is the elimination of most of our technological advantages. This

is in no small part due to the suffering of malnutrition within the

research and development activities within the United States. There is a definite economic side of technology. Together, industry and

government must look for ways of applying technological advantage to today's problems, growth productivity, inflation, employment and

balance of payment.

Cavanaugh

32
The incentive is here for applying one of our major technological

advantages, the computer, to the very inefficient trade documentation

practices we currently face. Time is of the essence. GE is bullish on

exports. But we are concerned because ships and planes don't move

international freight, paper does. Together we can change that.

I thank you for your interest and I hope for your active support.

33 Cavanaugh

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Ward Duel*

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) was founded in 1918, at a time

when standardization in this country was in

a chaotic state and international standards were only a dream. There were five founding

professional societies and three government

agencies. The present base includes 180

professional societies, 1000 companies, and

local, state, and federal governmental

agencies. ANSI is diverse enough to allow

each to have his own perspective of what

it does. Let me give you mine.

ANSI does the following:

1. Identifies needed standards and sets

a priority for their completion.

2. Proposes standard development work

to be done by competent

organizations

.

3. Assures that everyone's interest,

including consumers, is protected.

4. Supplies standards' writing organizations with effective procedures

and management services, to ensure efficient use of manpower and

financial resources.

5. Ensures that needed standards are developed on time.

6. Accepts voluntary consensus

standards that:

1) Express desirable technical

concepts

.

2) Establish a general frame of

reference for safety and

effectiveness

.

3) Speak to three levels of

compliance. These are:

a. The "may" level, which refers

to a desirable goal which

might not even be economically

or technically achievable when

written

.

b. The "should" level, which

implies a currently achievable

goal which ought to be

accomplished

.

c. The "shall" level, which is a mandatory term that usually

refers to a minimum standard.

Clearly, "consensus standards" are not

specifications or minimum regulations.

Before a standard can be considered for

approval, it must be derived by competent

national leadership. The "American National

Standards Institute Procedures for Management

and Coordination of American National

Standards" outlines the requirements for

developing standards. Simplified, there are three methods that can be used.

1. The Accredited Organization Method.

2 . The American National Standards

Committee Method.

3. The Canvass Method.

The Accredited Organization Method

This is the method that I, personally,

am most acquainted with, because I have

worked with the American Society of Mechanical Engineer's task force on standards for

safe and sanitary design of food, drug and

beverage manufacturing equipment (ASME-FDBME)

Any organization substantially involved

in standards and willing to comply with the

criteria listed in the prior mentioned

publication may apply to and be accredited by

the Institute. In developing standards, the

organization must provide an opportunity for

participation to all concerned national

interests, must maintain a balanced committee,

must consider and answer all objections,

and must report to a supervisory body, who

in turn, must attest to the fact that all

procedures have been followed and conditions

met

.

Accredited organizations' committees

*Mr. Duel is Assistant Director, Department of Environmental, Public and Occupational

Health, American Medical Association, 535 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610.

He is a member of the American National Standards Institute Medical Devices Standards

Management Board

.

35 Duel
are required to achieve consensus through a system of balloting in which all negative

votes must be accompanied by a stated reason.

The committee must then make an effort to resolve each dissenting vote. Sometimes

compromise solutions must be accepted which

may not satisfy all the objectors, but the

newly worked out solutions must fall within

parameters that all can accept.

There must be balance among the

interests of committeemen, and no one class

of committee members can be in the majority

at any meeting where decisions are made. In

the ASME-FDBME Committee, the classes are professional sanitarian, manufacturer, user, professional society member, and government

and academic representative. Three levels

of government are represented.

I will not lead you all the way up the

tortuous trail of developing a standard, but

I would like to mention that when submitted

by an accredited organization to ANSI, each

standard is considered as only a "Proposed

American National Standard". Periodically,

ANSI publishes the list of proposed standards

and solicits public comment. Only after

questions raised by the public are addressed,

and it is determined that a national

consensus exists, does the "proposed"

standard be an "accredited" standard, i.e.

an American National Standard. Let me assure

you, the public respondents always include

several well informed experts, who often

disagree with some aspect of the proposed

standard, or who feel that the new standard

will hurt their business. Those objecting

to the final decision have recourse to several stages of appeal, which time will not

permit me to enumerate.

The American National Standards Committee

Method

This committee method is only activated

when it is determined that standards in a specific area are needed and will be used,

but that no existing standards' writing group

has them currently under consideration or intends to study them in the future. The

appropriate Standards Management Board

assigns a secretariat to do the work. A

secretariat is an organization, not an individual, which is responsible for administering the business of the committee

according to established ANSI procedures.

There is, on occasion, a bit of competition

over the secretariat assignment. There are many procedures to follow that assure all

points of view are considered, and all

individuals and organizations are given a chance to participate, but when the process

is complete, workable standards emerge.

The Canvass Method

The canvass method is used when an organization believes its standard should

be adopted as an American National Standard.

The proponent must be willing to submit

evidence that overall agreement on the

acceptability of its standard exists. Most

of the ANSI rules applicable to this method

relate to who should be included on the

broad-based canvass list, how should

objections be handled, how should the canvass results be reported, and what action is

necessary for acceptance by the Institute.

I am a member of the ANSI Medical

Devices Standards Management Board, and at

the same time also liaison to the FDA for

the American Medical Association. Part of

my latter role includes studying the

possible effects of the implementation of

the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-295. So, in a sense, I wear two hats. There may be a problem of conflicting

purposes between the standards prepared and

used by government regulatory agencies, and

those prepared by standard writing organizations. Using the example of medical

devices, the FDA is authorized to promulgate

compulsory regulatory standards that will

insure safety and effectiveness, while ANSI

standards frequently contain some idealistic

sections, and compliance is intended to be

voluntary

.

Recently, there have been moves to withdraw ANSI standards, because the government

feels chaos will result if idealistically

drawn, voluntary, consensus standards are used alone to regulate industry. One of my

hats tells me that it is ridiculous to restudy and redo standards that were hammered out in hard sessions by a broad

representation of interests. The question

then arises, what then should be done?

It is my personal belief that 1) the

government should not interfere in areas where good, voluntary standards exist, and

where the trade is competently regulating

itself. 2) The American National Standards

Institute should identify minimum requirements of safety and efficacy, and delineate

clearly the may, should, and shall levels

of achievement. If ANSI did this, its

standards would be more suitable for

governmental use. 3) Where there are no

Duel 36
standards, or where standards are inadequate

the government should use the existing,

voluntary standard setting system and its

procedures. To make their standards acceptable for government regulations, desirable

goals which are not achievable and

achievable goals which are not essential t should be identified as such. 4) Lastly,

government and voluntary standards groups

must agree on the rationale and scope of

the proposed standard before the developmental stage can begin.

I came here with an assignment , to introduce you to the American National

Standards Institute system for producing

standards and with a personal mission. The

above completes my assignment. My mission

is to encourage you as data processing

people to carefully manage data that comes

to you, upon which decisions of health are resting. The data which is derived from

many sources will some day point the way

to causes of cancer. It will show which

environmental pollutants are dangerous to health and at what concentrations they are harmful. Standards can then be reevaluated

and causes eliminated. The data will pinpoint potential victims.

I mentioned previously that I am currently working with other committee

members on the implementation of the new medical devices law. To carry out this

assignment effectively, we must be able to assess vast amounts of data. The committee

and governmental representatives must

compare the accuracy of different existing

techniques, and declare less accurate

techniques obsolete. Laboratory directors

will be comparing their laboratories with

other laboratories in order to review their

effectiveness and improve weak spots. Much

will depend upon the data that is presented.

I haven't even touched on other vast

areas that are affected by medical data:

clinical trials for drugs and devices,

medical insurance costs, medical procedures

analysis, and so on. Much is dependent

upon you.

37 Duel
m
Management of Data Elements in

Information Processing

(Needs for Standards in the Health Care Field

and a Sampling of Current Applications)

Gerald J. Duffy

Vice President

EDP and Telecommunications Services

Blue Cross Association

Chicago, Illinois

The term "standards” means many different things to different people.

The objective of a particular "standard" may be to contain costs, to simplify

a work effort, to control the use of resources, or combinations of these

and other items. And the health care field is no exception in this regard.

People feel threatened or inhibited by standards; others feel more secure with standards; and attitudes such as this affect productivity one way or the other.

And where a standard is "placed" or "defined" is important in health

care, as it is in any business environment.

Congress, the American public, including the providers of health care

and health insurers, all want to contain costs of health care and increase

performance within the health care delivery system.

I'd like to explore for a few minutes how standards can aid in that

direction, what kind of standards are often used, whether they affect a local or more general environment, at what point in a business process they

might be "placed," and some of the dangers in applying them in the wrong

place in a process or at the wrong point in time. Within the health care

field, in particular when we process a claim for payment of health care

coverage, we define standards for the level of care a patient receives and

the length of stay for a patient with a specific diagnosis. And these

standards must be established so as not to pervert an important principle of

health care, namely, what are the appropriate procedures for a given disease.

In other words, the standard must be sensitive to the delicate balance

between appropriate health care and the need not to overutilize costly health

care resources. And many in the health care prepayment and insurance field set standards

for productivity, turnaround on claims payments, claims inquiries, etc.

These standards can be set to accomplish a key objective such as better

service or cost containment, but such a standard must be well-defined,

realistic, and subject to periodic review, over short enough time intervals,

to allow adjustments so as to avoid bad side effects.

Consider a health insurance program over a large population, such as some of the national health insurance legislation proposed over the last five

years, much of which has included the concept of a national health care credit card. If such legislation is passed, or if a health care credit card

becomes popularized by other means, perhaps standards may be appropriate for

the computer terminal needed in a doctor's office to verify a patient's

39 Duffy
eligibility and benefits remotely. The terminal in such a situation, we

must realize, must be simple for any receptionist or medical aide to use,

regardless of the size of the office, the rate of attrition of employees

using it, and so forth. It must be inexpensive both in initial cost and

operational cost. It must be capable of reading patient information from a card, such as patient ID, any deductibles or copayment levels, and other

parameters required by the health care program. And the terminal must be

capable of alerting the terminal operator regarding the patient's

eligibility status, among other status elements required by the program.

This need for a simple, low cost terminal seems more rational when one considers that such terminals serving similar populations for other services

such as super market retailing, have often been too complicated for an untrained employee to operate or for a customer to operate. So also, vendor

of terminals have made sincere but generally unsuccessful attempts to

standardize terminals resident in hospital admissions offices for years,

partly because the terminal had been initally designed for a general

computer application market and not for its customer in this case, namely,

the hospital administration market. And terminal vendors have suffered

similar growing and marketing pains in the banking industry where today's

terminals are becoming more standardized and even usable by the general

public for deposits, withdrawals, and other transactions.

In such an example as a health care credit card terminal, the standard

may indeed be a very simple one, namely describing a durable, low cost

device which has a reader mechanism always in the same location and usable

in one way only, with a light and/or audible alarm which signals the status

of the card bearer for a very small number of parameters, that is two or three perhaps. One may quibble with this and call these "requirements"

rather than a "standard," but these terminal requirements become a standard

if they are used widely, and there are many economic pressures which can translate such basic requirements into a "de facto" standard.

I would say that such a standard has a reasonable expectation for success because it serves a large but very simple application where the

invoking of the standard constitutes little or no threat to anyone save perhaps, the specialized terminal operator of yesterday who, with such a simple

terminal, would look like the legendary fireman on a diesel locomotive.

Health care provider terminals need some standardization to save cost,

and some future applications may precipitate some standards in this area.

And, as long as we're looking at the computer terminal, which after all

is very close to the end product business user in the doctor's office, in

the hospital or in a claims processing office, let's follow the trail back

to the host computer which processes that subscriber eligibility check, the

subsequent claim and the payment of benefits. In that host computer we find

a mammoth system which performs all of these functions and more. Within the

Blue Cross and Blue Shield System we have a development underway that

illustrates a high degree of standardization of software by using a method

of decision table processing to automatically adjudicate a claim. And this

software system may be resident on any one of a number of different IBM

computers with different hardware configurations and operating systems.

Thus we have a standard way of defining benefits and the automated adjudication process which uses any benefit definition as a processing algorithm.

Now let's look at the communications conduit which links computers.

In the health care field, the hardware and software available from

Duffy 40
computer vendors is different especially within the context of the vendor's

network architecture. Perhaps truly standard network architectures can be

defined for general classifications of telecommunications network needs and

vendors can make these architectures available through their network

processing and terminal product lines. Then the competition would be for

the best and cheapest way to carry out that architecture. Such standards

would no doubt need revisions at least every ten years to avoid the perpetuation of obsolete technology but could help significantly in lowering

the administrative cost of health care. When computer vendors are approached today with the question of a standard for a language such as COBOL, some respond by talking about

standardization among vendors, of the hardware components most used to

translate a COBOL program into machine code. Vendors now seem to question

the need for a completely standardized COBOL language by emphasizing a standardization of the hardware which produces the language translation

instead.

So here we have a question of the place at which a standard my buy us the most within a process. Placing the standard in either place can reduce

the cost of health care. Finally, perhaps some standards are relevant in the business area which

regulates most of our costs, namely, "management." One management consulting

organization has created a successful business by showing that six components

of management "climate" correlate heavily with the productivity of a management unit. And many of its customers have created a more meaningful management "climate" by accepting the definitions of those six components as a local management "standard" which precipitates discussion of internal

management problems from the same definition base for all managers.

In summary, maybe we need more standards, but perhaps we are applying

them in the wrong areas, in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

41

KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF

PETER J. FINNERTY

VICE PRESIDENT

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.

THE NEED FOR STANDARDS IN DATA TRANSMISSION

SEPTEMBER 29, 1977

Good morning and welcome to Washington, D.C. A fitting location for this morning's

convocation on International Trade Data Standards. Washington is the world capitol for

data from stuffy reports to slick computers, from red tapes to telephone taps. Seriously

though, not only does our government monitor our foreign trade in the world, but this bit

of geography on the Potomac has witnessed some remarkable upheavals in foreign commerce

caused by the march of American technology.

Such opening lines, along with the technical headings on the agenda, probably lead

you to expect me to launch into recitation on data bits and facilitation hits as you digest

your breakfast. Well, with apologies to any died-in-the-wool technocrats in the audience,

I will leave the specifics of the how to the experts that follow. Instead, my opening

discussion will communicate the why .

The dimensions of the opportunity that lies before us in International Trade Data

Standards are, believe it or not, nothing short of exciting. It comes as no surprise to a group of specialists such as yourselves, that the enormous volume of commerce between the

United States and other nations is currently a priority issue second to none. The

implications reach into the lives of every citizen, touch upon the programs of about every

agency, directly impact our national economy and are especially critical to the huge number

of companies involved, from mom and pop operations to multinational giants.

From petrodollars to comparative advantage, from floating exchange rates and orderly

marketing agreements to technology transfer, the all-transcending "International Order"

of the present cource of events is nevertheless, merely a chapter, in a much more lengthy

text

.

Charlie Hiltzheimer, our Chairman of the Board and principal mover and shaker at

Sea-Land, has several valuable nuggets of wisdom, one of which is apt for our discussion:

"see it big, keep it simple." Obviously, the continuing struggle by nations and peoples

for superiority in the intensely competitive marketplace of world trade is a subject of

global proportion. However, discerning the key pieces in the overall scheme of trade is

too often obscured by a wave of explanations in complex terminologies. If we aren’t careful, such a litany of "why nots" will confound the best of us.

It was Adam Smith, in his wealth of nations, who noted that sophistication and

complication is too often a means of evading a simple truth. In our case of International

Trade Data, I submit that we stand at the threshold of another small, but important

step for mankind. The simple truth involved is that despite the myriad obstacles and

rather forbidding multiplicity of institutions, companies, agencies, commodities, etc..

Foreign Trade Data will be standardized and brought into the age of modern information

technology . That may sound like a squeak to many of you, rather than a roar. You may

think J.f he considers that exciting, he probably gets pepped up over making out his tax

return too. Well, the fact is that even the I.R.S. has recognized the compelling logic

of using the computer and manages Information in a manner that ought to prod us into action.

43 Finnerty
The I.R.S. knows what successful enterprise the world over has discovered, extraordinary achievement begins with information. As at least one computer company has pointed

out, make information easily and instantly accessible and you set your energies free to explore the upper limits of the possible. Look around us and you will see many supposedly

impossible achievements that involved prior agreement on standards of some sort. Electronic

banking, grocery store scanners, automated airplane tickets and hotel reservations and even international direct dial telephone calls.

The simple fact is that the goal of Trade Data Standards will survive the gauntlet of

human disagreement because the economics and management motivations of the many functional

sectors involved in international trade demand it. Add to that the personal dedication

of the many experts that have spent over a decade reshaping the trade information portion

of the overall Foreign Commerce picture and you'll see that the necessary elements exist

today to make this goal happen. The key point is to recognize that we do have a hard core

of common agreement surrounded by a rich variety of individual differences. Beyond that,

it will require ample amounts of patience and persistence on the part of the participants.

This latter factor is at least as crucial as the balance of the equation.

What do I mean by those terms patience and persistence? Not simply one good try and

if it doesn't work you'll pick up your marbles and run home. Not at all, because ultimately

this endeavor will, like many standards efforts before, reach far beyond the shores of our great nation and involve numerous foreign interests, many of them hostile to our position

for other than fair and equitable reasons.

The scale of commitment that this task requires can be compared to the spirit exhibited

by another American. At the risk of sounding trite, his experience is worth citing. That

individual failed in business twice, was defeated for local public office three times,

defeated for the Vice Presidency and finally, twenty-nine years later, Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. That is not, of course, to suggest that we'll have the luxury

of three decades to sort out our differences. No where near that long, gentlemen.

Modem communication and transportation have compressed the periods of reaction time or advance notice, if you will during which we either meet the test or pass the baton of

leadership to the people or nations that possess the will to succeed in this endeavor. After

all, where is it written that Uncle Sam and we Americans are entitled to remain "king of the

mountain" forever? Not unless we work at it and hard!

I'll wager that most of you will attribute the phase, "survival of the fittest" to Darwin and his thesis of evolution. In fact, that term was coined by Herbert Spencer around

the turn of the century in his writings on economics. Of late, many other American interests

are struggling with the hard reality of world trade and the economics of comparative

advantage, both artificial and natural. Even container transportation, which has achieved

unprecedented increases in productivity from American technology ranging up to levels of

400 percent must cope with such factors as state-owned carrier competition, primarily the

Soviet Union's, which throws the profit motive and traditional market motivations right out

the porthole.

This year's International Economic report of the President sent to Congress in early

January estimated that during 1976 the U.S. Merchandise Trade balance suffered a deficit of

13.8 billion dollars, of which, by the way, 8.7 billion represented the cost of freight and

insurance on goods transported. That is, sixty-three percent of our merchandise trade

deficit for 1976 represented pajnnents, freight and insurance payments, to foreign carriers.

Projections by the Carter Administration in the last few days indicate that the trade

deficit in 1977 will be between 25 - 30 billion dollars, the largest in America's history.

Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps said in Tokyo on Tuesday that the 'Major hazard we face

in having such a large deficit in not a hazard to the strength of our economy, but rather

it lies in the fact that we may incur a strong sentiment for protectionism."

Finnertv

44
I cite the deficit figures and the risk of trade problems because our subject related

directly to the solution to those problems. The solution is to encourage the flow of

trade, not impede it. To that end, I want to both thank and congratulate the National

Bureau of Standards for fostering the International Trade Data Standards effort. Now

that the initial momentum has begun, it is vital that the appropriate follow-up take place.

Data standards represent that critical opening step in upgrading World Trade Data

Transmission. The momentum is building for a shake out in foreign trade that could rival

the turmoil seen in the securities industry as modern information technology is applied.

Properly accomplished though, the Trade Data System will serve all factions and not just

entities that push for concentration and economics of scale.

For our part in the private sector, I think I see the initial signs of natural

economic pressures coming to focus on this particular problem. Foreign Trade Data

communication is increasingly the weak link in the chain. World trade interests here

and abroad will press harder and harder to correct that situation and once the initial but

significant challenge of standards has been overcome, there's no way to estimate the extent

of commercial and social benefit that could be unleashed. Quantum jumps in productive

activity, conversion of now wasted effort into value, satisfaction of need and relief of

want are reasonable expectations in this yet unfolding human experience. I clo think that's

an exciting prospect.

I am even more confident now than in the Fall of 1966 when I had the good fortune to begin working with many of you to improve the international competitiveness of our companies,

our industries and our country that we have the right plan and a winning team in this contest.

It's right there for the taking. In not too much time, it will be clear to all of us and

everyone else whether we've met the challenge. Let's see when that international appraisal

takes place, the verdict on the U.S. system is, in the words of the latest James Bond tale,

that "Nobody does it better."

45 Finnertv

Data Processing

in Natural History Museums

T. Gary Gautier, Stanwyn G. Shetler^

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C. 20560

and

Craig Black^

Carnegie Museum of Natural History

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

Besides being places for relaxation and entertainment,

museums also preserve objects that tell us about the biological and physical world in which we live and about our culture and history. Museum specimens are like books in a library in that they are the reference materials for cultural and scientific research. Hundreds of millions of

specimens are contained in the over 6,000 museums of all

kinds in North America. A few of the larger natural

history museums alone contain tens of millions of specimens

each, which poses a major problem for their information

systems

.

Recorded data about objects are almost as valuable

as the objects themselves because they provide essential

information which cannot be determined by examining the

specimens. Complete conventional museum record systems

consist of field notes, accession papers, permanent labels,

catalogs and collection indexes, but many museums can'

afford to maintain only minimal documentation, which

makes their collections more difficult to use. Museums

are turning to data processing to improve their collection

documentat-ion. Several software packages have been es- pecially designed for museum use. Data bases are being

built for newly collected specimens as well as for the

massive existing collections. The benefits in terms of

greatly increased collection indexing and new uses for

museums data are much greater than in conventional systems . Intermuseum data exchanges are a goal in the museum

community. Scientific disciplines and museum organizations

form major channels for coordination of standards and

IChief, ADP Program, and Associate Curator of Botany,

^Director

respectively.

47 Gautier/She tier/Black
procedures between natural history museums. Data standards are already similar between natural history museums,

but experiments with data exchanges are needed to discover

where greater coordination nay be needed.

Key words: Collections, data elements, data problems,

data standardization, museums, natural history, networks

1. Introduction

Effort is 'being made in the museum community to upgrade the quality of

museums and to improve and build upon the many services they perform. A

major part of this activity involves automated information systems, since

museums are basically information centers. The purpose of this paper is to

briefly introduce the non-museum person to what museums really do and to

the current status and problems of their efforts to implement information

systems and data standards. The paper emphasizes natural history museums

because the backrounds of the authors are in Paleontology (Gautier and

Black) and Botany (Shetler). Other kinds of museums are making great

strides in information processing, too, and they face other kinds of

problems

.

The following references will provide good reading for those who

want to learn more about museum data processing: Chenhall [2], Shetler [5],

Squires [6], and Vance [7]. Twelve other good papers are available from the

Museum Data Bank Committee-'-.

2. Overview of Museums

Museums are generally viewed by the public as lovely, aesthetic places

which provide relaxation, entertainment and a general kind of education, but

museums are a great deal more than that. Museums preserve for us and for

future generations the objects that tell us about our past and our present,

about the biological and the physical world in which we live, how the world

came into being, and about our culture and our history. They are also

centers of study for a full range of scholars from the high school student

preparing a term paper to the advanced historian or scientist looking for answers to more subtle problems, and they provide a broad range of information and identification services to law enforcement officials, government

agencies, businesses, educational institutions and to the general public.

In the way they work and in the things they do, museums are similar to

libraries - they hold reference materials - the objects - which are made

available for study, and which must be catalogued, indexed, and stored in a systematic and careful manner, and they are staffed by highly trained

professionals

.

The Official Directory of Museums [1] lists over 6,000 museums in the

United States and Canada, and most of these fall into four major categories

based on the kinds of objects they hold and display - natural history

museums, art museums, history museums, and science and technology museums.

Most museums specialize even further. A museum may show a subject-matter

specialization, eg. African art, plants , farm implements, or American

Indian objects. Some museums emphasize public educational programs and

exhibits, whereas others give great weight to building representative

collections for research or to preserve particular aspects of culture,

-'-Address: Dr. Robert G. Chenhall, Chairman, Museum Data Bank Committee,

Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum, 700 Allen Creek Road, Rochester, N.Y. 14618

Gautier/Shetler/Black 48
nature, or science. Museums also specialize geographically, some emphasizing

local or regional subjects where others may be of national or international

scope

.

The specialization pattern of a museum depends on many factors such

as its age, the interests of its staff, the manner in which it originated;

its funding sources and funding levels are two of the more important factors.

Some museums depend almost entirely on public funds and give much importance

to programs popular with the public. Others that depend on private endowments may be guided by the interests of their benefactors. University museums naturally emphasize collections and services of use to education. Few

museums receive significant funds through charging for the services they

provide, and so monetary profit is usually not a major factor in measuring

the success of a museum - or of its information system.

The total number of objects held in museums nationwide is in the

hundreds of millions. in 1973, the Association of Systematics Collections

compiled a report [4] in which it estimated that there were somewhere

between 200 and 300 million specimens of animals and plants in the nation’s

natural history collections, which are the largest of the four major types

of museums. History museums probably house the second largest collections,

art museums the third largest, and science and technology museums the fourth.

Collection sizes in individual museums range from small to vast. The

American Museum of Natural History in New York City holds an estimated 30

to 40 million objects, and its neighbor across Central Park, the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, houses probably three to four million objects. It is estimated that there are over 60 million specimens in the National Museum of

Natural History in Washington, D.C. The massive size of collections poses

the greatest problem in developing and maintaining information systems in

museums

.

Specimens come to natural history museums from a variety of sources

for a variety of reasons. Private citizens donate specimens for tax purposes,

to settle estates or to insure that valuable specimens are preserved. Zoos

and botanical gardens donate deceased specimens. Also, some museums are designated by law as repositories for specimens collected by government

agencies such as the U. S. Geological Survey. Seized contraband is often

turned over to museums. Museums also purchase specimens. By far the most

material is collected by scientists, however, working alone or on large

expeditions or ocean cruises.

The kinds of data recorded for specimens are determined largely by

scientific requirements and collection management requirements. The following data elements are usually included, when applicable, in comprehensive

records

:

3. Data in Natural History Museums

3.1 Kinds of Data

Collection management data

Museum name Catalog number

Number of items

Accession number

Type of accession (gift

Collection subdivision

(birds, mammals, etc

Donor ’ s name

Date of accession

Date catalogued

purchase, exchange. etc . ) Location in collection

Gautier/ She tier/Black

49
Scientific data

Scientific name Higher classification

Author of scientific name Year scientific name was

Field number

Date collected

Sex

Type of preservation

Locality where collected

Locality number

Altitude

Depth

Stratigraphic position

Ecology data

published

Bibliographic citation

Type-specimen status

Identifier's name

Date identified

Collector's name

Many other data elements may be included which are specific to certain

scientific disciplines. Examples are molt data for birds, chemical-analysis data for rocks and minerals, body length, hair color, and reproduction

characteristics for mammals, flower color and tree size for plants, and

cultural data for archeological materials. The number of observations

recorded for specimens varies from just a few to hundreds depending on the

conditions under which the specimens were collected and the amount of study

they have undergone.

Records about specimens are almost as valuable to museums as the specimens

themselves. For the collection manager and for museum administrators, records

are essential to the proper care and control of the collections and to the

assessment of priorities for future collection growth and maintenance. To

scholars, scientists and other users of the collections, records simplify

the job of finding specimens, but of even more importance, records contain

essential contributed data such as collecting dates and observations of

other scientists which cannot be determined by examining the specimens themselves and which would be lost forever if not recorded. Natural history

specimens for which no data are recorded are virtually worthless for scientific study and are often discarded or placed in expendable teaching collections, unless they are one of a kind, intrinsically valuable or unique in some other important way. Consequently, museums give high priority to

maintaining effective records.

The prime objective of a museum data system is to preserve the specimen

data in a manner that it will not be lost and can always be matched with the

specimen. The second objective is to provide whatever data are necessary to

manage the collection and to keep the specimens safe, and the third objective is to provide indexes and other records which will facilitate the use

and management of the collection. The data systems should also have these

characteristics: (1) museum data do not become obsolete, so the records

should be of archival quality in order to last an indefinite period of time;

(2) years may pass between the points in time when a specimen is studied,

but its records should be as readily accessible as those of specimens of

current interest; (3) data about a specimen may be contributed at any time,

so records must be updatable; and (4) original descriptions, geographic

terms even if archaic or obsolete must be preserved rather than replace by

modern expressions. Upgrading old data may change the original meaning.

The following five major kinds of documents make up a complete conven- tional record system in a natural history museum.

3.2 Role of Museum Records

3.3 Conventional Records

Gautier/Shetler/Black

50
( 1 ) Field documents : Some of the most important specimen data come to

hand at the time the specimen is collected, eg. the date of collection, ecologic notes, and locality data. Extensive notes are re- corded in field notebooks and on temporary (sometimes permanent)

specimen labels. Several techniques are used to correlate the

in the notebook with the specimens.

(2) Accession documents : Letters of transmittal, collection permits,

shipping papers, and all other papers which come to hand when the

specimens are transferred to the museum are kept. These papers are especially important in establishing that the specimens were legally obtained and are owned by the museum. Accession documents us- ually refer to groups of specimens rather than a single specimen.

(3) Permanent labels : Many curators regard the permanent label as the

most essential document because it is always kept with the specimen

and contains a complete set of the important data. Museums go to

great lengths to assure that labels will last indefinitly and will

not easily be separated from the specimens. As a backup measure,

the specimen number is often written on the specimen itself to

provide a link to the specimen catalog in case the label is lost

or destroyed.

(4) Catalogues : If unique numbers are assigned to specimens, the data

are usually recorded in numerical order in a bound ledger or on index cards, which constitute a catalog of the collection. The

catalog often contains the most complete and up-to-date information

about specimens.

(5) Indexes : Indexes to the collection usually consist of complete or abbreviated copies of specimen data on index cards arranged geographically, by object name, by donor's name, by culture etc.

Good collection indexes can save considerable time in searching

for specimens in a large collection. The internal systematic

arrangement of the collection itself often provides an avenue of

quick access also.

Most museums that use conventional documentation methods have not been

able to maintain a complete set of records because they do no have the staff

to handle the huge number of specimens. Some can barely find the time to

put permanent labels on the specimens and to keep the collections in good

order. The thought of cataloging specimens and of building indexes is out

of the question. Accepted practice in botanical collections (herbaria) is

to number the specimens serially, arrange them in the storage cases by their

classification and let the collection itself serve as the catalog. Virtually the same is true in insect collections, but there the vast numbers of

specimens (over 20 million in the NMNH alone) discourage even the assignment

of serial numbers to the specimens. In some collections where specimens typically are less numerous, eg. mammals, birds, and reptiles, catalogs may be

kept for all specimens or at least for the most important ones, but indexes

are less common. Most scientists who regularly visit various collections to conduct their

research expect to do extra work to overcome incomplete documentation. A

scientist is often faced with having to mount, as it were, a new expedition

into a collection to find the desired data. The potential value of many

significant collections is not being realized because they are so inaccessible

owing to minimal documentation.

51

Gautier/Shetler/Black
3.4 Data Processing Systems in Museums

A few museums began looking into data processing about fifteen years ago

to solve their data-handling problems, and several software packages designed

especially for museum use have been put together by museums, universities,

and more recently by commercial firms. Data processing was used at first by

only the few museums that had the right combination of hardware, expertise,

and management to overcome the considerable start-up and growing problems.

But in recent years, improvements in technology, decreasing costs, better

understanding of the role of data processing and other positive developments

have induced a general surge of interest across the entire museum community.

It appears that data processing will be commonplace in museums in just a few

years

.

Most museums are still at the stage of comprehending or assimilating the

basics of data processing. The questions commonly asked now by museums are:

"Should we install a system," "What systems are available," "Which system

should we use," "Can we afford to use data processing," and "Where can we

get help in getting started?" Many grant proposals have been submitted by

museums to funding agencies in recent years seeking support for installing

systems, and some of them have been accepted. For some of the less fortunate museums, however, data processing is out of the question, but many of

them are tuning up their conventional record systems to allow easier conversion to automated systems later.

The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) was one of the first mu- seums to begin using data processing. It's system will be briefly described

here to give the reader an idea of what a museum does with a data processing

system.

NMNH began using data processing in the early 1960’s with two basic

objectives in mind: (1) to reduce the amount of work required to catalog and

label new specimens and (2) to build an machine-readable data base that would

allow extensive cross-indexing of the existing collections and rapid retrieval

of combinations of specimen-associated information. With the help of the

Smithsonian computer center, the museum designed and wrote it's own batchprocessing software, which has since been put into use at several other museums. A central office was set up to coordinate the data processing

program, but it was left up to the scientific departments to determine which

of the millions of specimens to process first and which data to enter for

them.

Because it is unlikely that NMNH will have enough time and money to

process all of the data for the entire collection of 60 million objects,

priorities for processing are crucial. Some departments have given priority

to using the museum's system to catalog new specimens. An average of twenty

to thirty data items are entered for each specimen from a variety of source documents such as field notes, temporary labels, and data sheets. Several

techniques are used to eliminate redundant typing, and automatic typewriters,

the computer, or programmable terminals are used to print multiple copies of

specimen labels, index cards and other specimen documents.

Other departments have stressed retrospective processing of data on important older collections such as type specimens, other intrinsically

valuable specimens, or specimens of current research interest. Conventional

catalogues or indexes that already exist are sometimes used as the source documents, their internal systematic arrangement serving to reduce redundant

keystroking. In some cases, to spread the data processing resources over a larger portion of the collection, only the main data elements are recorded

rather than all of the elements typically found in a catalog. The data base

then serves as an index to the collection rather than a catalog of the

specimens

.

Gautier/Shetler/Black 52
NMNH has entered data for over 3 million specimens so far and is adding

data at the rate of a quarter of a million specimens per year. Costs for

processing the data are similar to the costs of conventional systems, but the

benefits in terms of indexing and retrieval are far greater. Here are a few

of the products already provided to users of the collections:

* Computer-plotted map of squid-collecting sites in the

southern hemisphere.

* Culture/ locality/obj ect-name index to an ethnology

collection of a quarter of a million objects.

* Computer-produced microfiche (master list, species

index and locality index) for records of ticks and

their hosts. This three-quarter-inch stack of microfiche

enabled a scientist to take the data from 80,000

index cards on an extended visit to the British Museum

to restudy some large collections.

* List of sediment samples collected along stretches

of the Potomac River specified by latitude/longitude

coordinates. The list was provided to an environmental

consultant

.

* Published lists of type specimens and other important

specimens held by the museum.

An here are a few of the products provided for collection management purposes

* List of ethnology specimens accessioned as gifts.

* List of specimens missing from a type collection (probably

misfiled with non-type specimens).

* List of specimens with duplicate catalog numbers.

* List of mineral specimens on exhibit.

* List of specimens lacking mandetory items of data.

* List of Seminole Indian objects; produced as a turn-around

document to be checked against the collection.

Some of these products could be provided only after searching tens of

thousands of records, a feat which would have been impossible in a conventional data systems.

Data processing systems in other natural history museums are similar

to the one at NMNH in their basic objectives and data sets but differ in

details. For instance, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh

is using commercial software and does its processing on a vendor’s system. At

the University of Michigan, herpetology collections are processed on a university system which is at least partially interactive, and the same is true

for archeological collections being catalogued at Arizona State Museum. One

of the most promising systems is in Canada, where the government is financing a network for the national museums of Canada. The data processing

center is in Ottawa, and is accessible to the participating museums via

terminals. A couple of museums have experimented with minicomputers.

53 Gautier/ She tler/B lack
3 . 5 Data Problems

The characteristics of museum data and the uses to which they will be

put pose some interesting challenges for museums in defining their data

standards and in operating their data processing systems. The following

four examples explain some of the more severe problems.

a. Problem of Old Records

One of the authors (Shetler) recalls that when he came to the Smithsonian

in the early 1960's, he was handed a small packet of papers with a tag

attached on which was written "Hold for three months and then throw out."

The date on the tag was 1926! This recollection illustrates a major problem

that faces museums on a daily basis - the condition of the older records.

Conventional museum records which have been accumulated over periods of

50 or 100 years contain just about any type of data problem imaginable - missing data, misspellings, transcription errors, poor handwriting, faded

entries, obsolete terminology, synonyms, unexplained codes and marks, vague

or general terms, transposition errors, obsolete geographic terms, inconsistent formats and so forth. The wise user of older museum records makes no assumption about their accuracy unless some kind of verification is possible.

Obsolete or vague geographic terms are of particular concern in museum

data processing systems. Though scientists today require precise locality

data for specimens, many older specimens are simply labelled "Dakota Territory," "Colorado River," "Great Britain," or "Phillipine Islands," and even newer specimens may have been collected in countries that no longer

exist. Museum data standards must take into account such historical aspects

of data. Most museum curators require that old locality data be entered

exactly as given, since attempts at clarification - if possible at all - may

change the original meaning of the data. Despite rigid controls, however,

errors do creep in, as in one case where "Oklahoma Territory" was changed

to "Oklahoma," cutting several thousand square miles off the original

locality designation.

The eventual outcome of processing older data in museums is that the

data are either entered "dirty" or a great deal of time is spent in weeding

out the problems. Which direction a collection takes depends on its priorities. For instance, if a museum department is preparing to publish a catalog of the important specimens in its collection, accuracy is of paramount importance. On the other hand, if auditors have ordered that a computerized inventory of a collection be prepared in a short period of time

(this has happened), less accuracy or highly abbreviated data will be tolerated, and the problems will be cleaned out later.

b. Problems with New Data

During the long history of collecting, scientists have come to follow

fairly standard practices in the kinds of data they record and the kinds of

original documents they prepare, but the standards do not always provide the

precise definitions of terms, syntax, and formats of data required in a data

processing system. Consequently, original data coming to a museum with new specimens may be presented in a wide variety of forms, which complicates the

museums 's job of curating and documenting the specimens.

Data processing has not been in museums long enough for its strict data

requirements to become known and followed by all collectors, but progress is

being made on many fronts. For instance, many scientists (eg. Erwin [3])

who are using data processing in their research have developed standard forms

Gaut ier /Shetler/ Black 54
for the collection of data in the field, and follow their standards consistently. When the benefits those scientists have derived from standardization

become well known, other collectors may adopt their procedures.

c. Classification Problems

One of the oldest and most formal data standards followed by museums is

the binomial system of nomenclature which dates back to the eighteenth cen- tury and which requires that the scientific names of animals and plants be

made of two words, a generic name and a specific name. Assigning the correct

scientific name to a specimen is just one part of the process of classifying

organisms, however. Scientists are also concerned with higher levels of

classification where genera are grouped into families, families into orders,

orders into classes and so forth. The entire classification system is meant

to express the natural order that exists in nature.

In the ideal data processing system, the correct scientific name for a specimen would be entered and would never need to be changed. A higher

classification system agreed upon by all scientists would also be entered

to facilitate retrieval of larger related groups of specimens. But the ideal

system is virtually impossible to achieve. The classification of animals

and plants is a highly subjective process which is in a constant state of

flux. New scientific names are constantly being created, and existing names

are being changed or replaced as scientists discover new facts that change

their interpretations. Higher classification schemes are almost as numerous

as the scientists using them, and scientists often have difficulty in agreeing

on the proper identification for specimens. Museum data standards must have

enough flexibility to take these fluctuations into account but also enough

rigidity and precision to enable classification to be a useful point of

retrieval for museum data banks.

d. Problem of additions to the minimum data set

Data processing opens up many new ways for using museum data, but these

may in turn require museums and collectors to add to the list of data elements

they normally record. Computer mapping gives a prime example.

A major line of investigation of animals and plants is to study their

distributions to determine such things as what environmental factors control

the distributions and how the distributions have changed in time. The advent

of computer mapping promises to greatly speed up distribution studies. Museum collections represent the largest sets of distribution data available,

and are particularly important because they include the time dimension which

allows scientists to determine distributions in times past. The scientists’

interest in using specimen data for such studies poses problems for museums,

however, because machine-mapable coordinates (eg. latitutde and longitude)

are available for only a minority of the specimens. It is unlikely that

museums ever will take the time to plot coordinates for their older specimens,

except perhaps by using the computer to match their data bases with geographic

data bases (obsolete and imprecise geographic terms would be problems in such

a process), but at an increasing frequency, museums are taking the extra time

necessary to record mapable coordinates for new specimens.

55 Gautier/Shetler/ Black
4 . Coordination of Data Standards between Museums

The scientific disciplines such as entomology, archeology, botany, paleontology and mineralogy have a vital role in setting the course of data processing and data standardization in natural history museums. Their members

are by far the major users and contributors to the collections, and most mus- eum curators and administrators are scientists themselves. The professional

societies such as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and the American

Society of Mammalogists are often the major forums for inter-museum discussions concerning such things as proper curation techniques, national priorities for collecting and standards. In recent years, many of the disciplines

have formed advisory committees, at least partially funded by the National

Science Foundation, which have prepared white papers outlining the needs of

their collections across the nation. The need for improved documentation

systems has often been identified.

Some of the disciplines have given much consideration to data processing.

The American Society of Mammalogists has probably gone the farthest in establishing a program called the National Information Retrieval Network for

Mammalogy (NIRM) . A goal of NIRM is to build a data base for the nation’s

mammals collections, which are estimated to hold a total of 2.5 million

specimens. Among other things, the combined data base would help a mam- malogist discover where specimens of interest to him/her are located, and it

might be used by museums to plan exchanges to bring all specimens of one kind or from one geographic area together.

NIRM has identified a minimum data set and has written standards for the

data elements. Though funds have not been obtained to operate NIRM on a nationwide basis, many museums which are using data processing in the mammal

collections are following the NIRM standards, and their progress reports are included in the NIRM report periodically prepared by ASM.

Museum organizations such as the Association of Systematics Collections,

the American Association of Museums, and the International Commission on Museums are also taking steps that may assist coordination of data standards

between museums. Although most museum data processing standards have been written to

meet the needs of individual collections, there is great similarity between

standards of different museums because of the inherent similarity between

collections, the strong coordinative effects of the scientific disciplines

and museum organizations, the sharing of software, data standards and data

processing experiences between some museums, and the strong desire in many

museums to use systems compatible with others. It seems likely, therefore,

that many museums will be able to combine their data bases to produce composite indexes to their collections and other useful products that would

facilitate collection planning, maintenance and use. But, this assumption

has not been tested, since examples of such inter-museum data exchanges are almost non-existent. Museums need to act soon, before their data bases are

too large, to carry out at least experimental exchanges to discover where

modifications to achiever greater compatibility are needed in their data

standards

.

Whatever way coordination of data standards is achieved between museums,

experience suggests that the process should have the following characteristics

to be most successful:

(1) The standards must serve a current practical need;

standards which are intended to anticipate future

needs will probably be used less.

Gautier/ She tier/ Black 56
(2) The standards should not compromise scientific

freedom of thought.

(3) The standards cannot require an expensive retrospective

change in existing data banks and other collection

documentation

.

(4) The standards should bring benefits soon to individual

museums

.

(5) The standards should be easy to adopt or highly

beneficial if they are complex.

(6) The standards cannot require elimination of essential

information, i.e. reduction of the minimum data set.

Above all, more communication and sharing of ideas, and a greater awareness

of the potential of data processing in museums will be needed.

5. References

[1] American Association of Museums,

The Official Museum Directory,

National Register Publishing Co.,

New York, 891 p. (1977).

[2] Chenhall, Rober G. , Museum Cataloging in the Computer Age, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, 261 p.

(1975)

.

[3] Erwin, La Verne J. Magarian,

Application of a Computerized

General Purpose Information Management System (SELGEM) to a Natural History Research Data Bank

(Coleoptera: Carabidae), The

Coleopterist s Bulletin, 30:1-32

(1976)

.

[4] Irwin, H.S., Payne, W.'W. , Bates,

D.M.

,

and Humphrey, P.S. (Compilers and editors), America's

Systematics Collections: A

National Plan, Association of

Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 63 p. (1973).

[5] Shetler, Stanwyn G. , Demythologizing Biological Data Banking, Taxon, 23:71-100 (1974).

[6] Squires, D.F., Data Processing

and Museum Collections: A

Problem for The Present: Curator,

9:216-227 (1966).

[7] Vance, David, Computers in the

Museum, I3M Corporation, 69p.

(Available through IBM representatives ) (1973).

57 Gautier/ She tier/ Black

Keynote Address

Stephen M. Gershenson

Assistant Director

Commission on Federal Paperwork

Introduction

Today's headlines scream "hot war," "cold war," "crime" and "scandal." They blast

out that this is a world beset by personal conflicts and profound, disquieting political

and social turmoil. My remarks this morning have nothing whatever to do with these cosmic

concerns. Rather, they are modest in scope, tempered in rhetoric, and confined to an examination of four questions:

® What was the Commission on Federal Paperwork instructed to do under

the law that created it?

9 How did the Commission go about its work?

• What did the Commission find? What are its central conclusions?

9 What, in brief compass, are the Commission's recommendations, its

agenda for reform?

The answers to these questions form the nucleus of the Commission's Final Report.

This report, transmitted today to the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of

the House of Representatives, is both epilogue and prologue. It is an epilogue for the

Commission on Federal Paperwork, its mandate fulfilled and its tenure expired. It is

prologue for the work yet to be done.

This Symposium is, for several reas'ons, an appropriate forum in which to share the

Commission's work. First, the Commission's origin and early thinking owes much to the

conceptual and technical contributions of your speakers and attendees. Second, the

Commission conferred with several of you to sharpen and refine its analyses and investigations. Third, and most important, many of you will be asked to implement specific

proposals made by the Commission. Entrusted with this responsibility, you ought to know

the source and evolution of those recommendations.

The Commission's Mandate

The first question, "What was the Commission instructed to do?" has a three-part

answer. One important objective of the Commission, from my viewpoint, was to surmount

its name. The law creating the Cownission uses the word "paperwork" only three or four times. There are, however, repeated references to information, e.g., "Federal

information reporting requirements," "information reporting burden," "information policies

and practices, "...management and control in information activities," "Federal information

needs," and so on. In name, we were the Commission on Federal Paperwork; more accurately,

T

Public Law 93-556; 88 Stat. 1789.

59 Gershenson
we functioned as a conmission on information management. This was ’done deliberately.

The Conmission was instructed to "...study and investigate statutes, policies, rules,

regulations, procedures, and practices of the Federal Government relating to information

gathering, processing, and disseminating, and the management and control of these information

activities."

3 More specifically, the Conmission was to consider:

• the nature and extent of current Federal requirements for information from

other public and private entities;

• the effect of existing statutes on the information requirements of the

Federal Government and authorities of existing Federal agencies to collect

informati on;

• the nature and extent of management and control over the determination of

Federal information needs and the choice of information gathering, processing,

and dissemination methods;

• the nature and extent to which Federal agencies cooperate with State and local

governments and private agencies in collecting, processing and disseminating

information;

• the procedures used and the extent to which considerations of economy and

efficiency impact upon Federal information activities, particularly as these matters relate to costs burdening the Federal Government and providers

of information; and

• the ways in which policies and practices relating to the maintenance of

confidentiality of information impact upon Federal information activities.

The objectives of the Conmission were not only to study, but also to reform. Our charter

required us to identify and articulate those changes, "possible anjj desirable," in Federal

information activities which would achieve several specific goals: First, to assure that

the informational needs of Federal officials, or those acting in their must furnish information

to the Federal Government; third, to develop "appropriate standards of confidentiality" for

information held by private citizens or the Government, and the release thereof; fourth, to provide that information held by the Government is processed and disseminated to maximize its

usefulness to all Federal agencies and the public; fifth, to reduce the duplication of

information collected by the Federal Government and By State and local governments and other

collectors of information; and, finally, to reduce the costs of Federal paperwork.

The requirement to investigate Federal information management policies and practices,

coupled with the obligation to develop recommendations, gave this Conmission the broadest

mandate since the Hoover Commission's to examine the programs, practices and processes of

the Federal Government. The key elements of public management were to be refracted through

a paperwork prism.

2 Ibi

d

. , Sec. 3. (a)

3

1 bi d . 4 Ibid . , Sec. 3. (b)

Gershenson 60
The Work of the Cormission

Given this charter, and a lifespan of two years, how did we go about our work? We

went about it in four complementary ways.

Conmission Hearings and Advocacy . The Commission held a series of hearings throughout

the nation — 25 days of hearings in 19 cities. So far as we know, no other temporary

cormission has been so diligent in seeking out citizen and business concerns, nor so attentive to the issues raised. Often, these hearings led to what we refer to as "weed

cutting" exercises in which individuals who testified before the Conmission presented

"horror stories" confined usually to a single form or report, garbled instructions,

conflicting regulations, duplicate requests for information and so on. To respond

promptly to these complaints the Conmission created an advocacy/ombudsmen unit. We

had a toll-free "hot line" open 12 hours a day. Complaints were received, documented,

and investigated; alternative solutions were developed in consultation with the agency

or agencies involved. The preferred option was then communicated to the agency through

recommendations formally adopted by the Conmission.

Impact Studies . Identification of problems from the respondents' point of view occurred

through hearings, correspondence, and contacts with representative organizations. The

Commission's impact studies synthesized this information and undertook additional

research to report on the burdens of paperwork and red tape from five types of respondents:

farmers, individuals, labor organizations, large and small businesses, and State and

local governments.

Program Studies . Eighteen program studies focused on the paperwork and information

management problems arising from either a single piece of legislation — such as the

Occupational Safety and Health Act or pension reform (ERISA) — or a broad Government

activity, such as housing, energy and welfare. Individually, these studies yielded

immediate improvements; collectively, they provided substantial evidence which illuminated the systemic problems of Federal paperwork.

Government-wide Studies . The fundamental institutional reforms sought by the Commission

were explored through thirteen process studies. These studies analyzed problems that

cut across organization boundaries, were not limited by specific program legislation,

and had persisted for some time. In purpose, these studies sought changes in those

statutes and policies which serve as the bedrock of Government management procedures

affecting paperwork requirements. Topics of this kind include treating information as

a resource; central clearance of reports and information requests imposed on respondents;

legislative barriers and administrative constraints on information sharing; information

exchange between and among levels of government; and the role of Congress in creating

and controlling paperwork.

Emerging from these studies is a body of evidence that is at once broad in scope,

rich in detail and resistant to easy summarization. Nevertheless, there is an obligation to summarize and simplify and it is to that task that I now turn.

Findings and Conclusions

The principal findings and conclusions of the Commission can be sketched quickly.

The first cluster of findings are general in nature; the second focuses on the key causes

of excessive paperwork and red tape.

61 Gershenson
General Observations . I will confine myself here to only a few general observations,

mindful of Justice Holmes' admonition that an examination of the obvious is often more

valuable than research into the obscure. What now is obvious is that:

• Paperwork originates in the political, not the administrative process, i.e.,

legislation is the root cause of paperwork. Surveys, applications, reporting

and recordkeeping requirements are either mandated or authorized by law.

• The scope and diversity of Federal Government functions are mirrored in its

information-gathering activities. As the number and type of Federal programs

grow, so too does the demand for more kinds of information at increasing

levels of detail. Federal agencies, and their State and local counterparts,

now collect information from individuals, commercial and non-profit enterprises,

educational institutions, labor organizations and from one another. This

information is used for such functions as licensing, registration, insuring,

training, regulating, servicing, diagnosing treating, charging, paying, or conveying other benefits or penalties. Paperwork is the inevitable if

unwelcome consequence of the demands we ask Government to satisfy.

• Most of the paperwork required by Federal agencies is necessary and important

to the planning and operation of authorized programs and functions. More

pointedly, I would argue that "routine paperwork" is often the most efficient,

most economical and least intrusive way for the Government to get the information it needs. It is by far preferable to permanent, on-site inspectors

or auditors, special or one-time surveys, litigation and its discovery

procedures, and legions of enumerators.

• The ways in which the Federal Government manages (or mismanages) its information

resources can be improved. The opportunities are abundant, visible and

recurring. The mismanagement of information is not a situation to be endured,

it is a problem to be solved.

Key Causes of Excessive Paperwork . The Commission identified seven basic causes of, or factors which contribute to excessive paperwork. The first cause, according to our Final

Report, is poor communication. Poor communication in the sense that government is obscure

to its citizens — impenetrable, remote and adversarial in nature. This finding, although

easy to state, has important consequences.

Traditional democratic theory presupposed an irrenediate and evident relation

between the individual citizen and the government.... [fj he state was to confront the citizen directly as both servant and master. The issues debated

in the legislature [and, by extension, the decisions of executive and regulatory

agencies] would be comprehensible tp every educated subject and their relevance

to his interests easily understood. (Bracketed material not in the original.

S.G.

)

These presuppositions no longer hold; in fact, they are historical curios in an age

which needs permanent, complex institutional arrangements to transmit the "will of the

people" to the elected governors, to refine, adjust and clarify the mix of rights and

obligations. The strategy for improving communications between citizen and government is,

therefore, not laid out for us in bold letters. Rather, it is marked by careful attention

^Robert Paul Wolff, et al. A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Beacon Press, Boston, 1965)

pp. 6, 7.

Gershenson 62
to details, sensitivity to subtle distinctions and nuance, and tedious work.

A second cause of excessive paperwork is the insensitivity of public officials. We

include here both elected and appointed persons who, in preparing their informational

requests from the public, are heedless, if not necessarily mindless, of the burdens that

are imposed upon the public. The cost of complying with informational requests in

inadequately, and in some cases never considered.

A third cause of citizen concern is the incomprehensible nature of some of our forms

and instructions. When college-'level reading skill is needed to decode or decipher the

simpliest IRS form, something is amiss in Washington.

More important, and frequently encountered, we found overlapping organizational

structures and jurisdictions to be a principal spur to Federal paperwork. For example,

the Farmers Home Administration, the Veterans' Administration, and Department of Housing

and Urban Development guarantee or insure loans for private homes. The information needed

by the lenders for each of these programs is more or less identical. Nevertheless, there

are abundant and redundant forms that collect the same information, that double, triple

and quadruple the burdens upon the lenders and those who seek loans. Here is another

example: prior to the new Department of Energy, now in embryonic form, at least six

major executive agencies collected information on oil imports. At the end of each month

or quarter, when the data were displayed, one simply could not reconcile the findings of

one agency with those of another. In some cases definitional disputes arose — that is,

the same term or phrase had more than one meaning. In others, reporting dates differed

from one system to another. When a tanker enters a harbor, the Bureau of Customs receives

a manifest that lists the volume of imported oil as of that day. However, the refiner

who has not yet taken possession will report a different date for the importation of the

oil. In result, we have systems that are inconsistent and that produce contradictory

information on the same subject for the same time period. No wonder that citizens are

baffled, and planning and policy decisions cannot be made with anything approaching a high order of confidence.

A fifth leading contributor to paperwork is inadequate program design. Federal

agencies responsible for designing, operating and evaluating a program sometimes strain

belief to produce inefficient, ineffective, cumbersome, costly, and intrusive reporting

systems. These are exercises in imagination rather than in self-discipline or common

sense.

Closer to the concerns of this Symposium is the finding that poor information management

practices prevail. The Corranission is mindful of the slow development of information

standards, the difficulties in information transfer, the absence of an inventory or directory

of Federal information holdings, the problems in the clearance process, etc. We have

documented several instances in which reporting systems were "enriched" or enlarged not

because of need but because computer time was available. We have corroborated the observation

that- computerized applications expand to meet the capacity of the configuration. Stated

bluntly, technology has outrun wisdom.

A seventh cause of paperwork problems can be traced to inconsistent, incomplete and

ineffective laws, policies and practices dealing with confidentiality and privacy of

information. The two statutes that control here — the Freedom of Information Act and the

Privacy Act — are each in their own way, limited. The Freedom of Information Act

enunciates a policy of broad public disclosure for all types of information, and then

proceeds to list nine classes of (discretionary) exemptions. The Privacy Act, on the other

hand, deals with only one category of information — personal/individual data — but treats

it through collection, storage, processing, dissemination and use.

The confusion that results contributes to and reenforces compliance machinery that Is inadequate in scope, diffused in purpose and meager in results.

63 Gershenson
Overview of Commission Recommendations

So far, we have answered three of the four questions posed at the outset. We have

outlined the Commission' s mandate, its work program and its findings. The remaining

question is, "What does the Commission propose? Where do we go from here?"

I think there are about a half dozen or so categories of reform that we should seek.

The first two I would call "dispositional," in the sense that they require conceptual

and attitudinal changes. The conceptual change is one that you have already made. It is

testified to by your presence here — part of a small but growing group that recognizes

that information is resource, not a free good. Not only is information a resource, i+ is

a manageable resource — one that can &e planned, one that can De organized, one that can be

controlled, one that can be evaluated, one that can be budgeted. In essence, information

can be treated as a resource in much the same way we now treat personnel, real property,

space, equipment and supplies. This is not a radical notion, but it is one that is

resisted by many people in government because they have never been asked to account for

the information practices they have committed.

Along with this conceptual change -- that of treating information as a resource -- there is an attitudinal change that we seek. Historically, administrative and management

reforms offered by study commissions have emphasized economy and efficiency in terms of

the internal machinery of government. Such proposals reflect implicitly certain beliefs

about the role of government in a laissez faire environment. The fact of the matter is that

the Federal Government is now enmeshed in the day-to-day lives of our citizens, our institutions, and our organizations in unprecendented ways. The National Government has

shifted from a passive referee or arbiter of private sector disputes to a provider and

deliverer of services. We argue that public management or public administration needs a new body of doctrine more suitable to today's realities than to yesterday's rhetoric. We

call this concept "service management."

Service management is the set of principles, procedures and techniques necessary if

Federal programs involving those outside government are to operate according to these

long-standing tenets of public policy:

9 Government exists to serve and protect;

• Federal programs should be conducted with economy, efficiency and speed, coupled

with fairness and equity.

Our proposals are consistent with, and build upon existing management techniques by

adding two distinctive disciplines:

9 Managing information as a resource; and

0 Analyzing alternative ways of organizing and operating programs so that

costs and advantages are appropriately distributed among all parties involved.

The concept of service management must be understood as preparing government to manage

not only its costs for Federal programs, but to manage as well the costs which Federal

programs impose on others.

1 had mentioned earlier and gave some examples of organizational anomalies as causes

of paperwork. The Commission therefore finds it necessary to recommend a number of

organization changes which involve both the Congress and the executive agencies. For the

Congress the Commission has recommended that the House Committee on Government Operations

and the Senate Committee on Government Affairs assume the leadership role for all

legislative oversight for the information policies and practices of the Federal Government.

Gershenson 64
Vlithin the executive branch, the Comnission has found the existing machinery of

Government for coordination, policy and standard-setting, and enforcement to be inadequate

and occasionally embarrassing. The Commission has recommended that the President and the

Congress give prompt consideration to establishing a central. Cabinet-level Department of

Administration to permit improved policy formulation, policy oversight, and standard setting

in addition to specific operating and coordinative responsibilities.

There are also many other recommendations made by the Commissiop. They are less sweeping in nature and certainly less glamorous. We have made some specific proposals to change

certain procedural, operational and technical aspects of government. We have, for instance,

urged changes to the reports clearance process — the system whereby agencies now submit

(to either 0MB or the General Accounting Office) requests for information from the public.

The clearance process is marked by split jurisdiction between the 0MB and the GAO, late

arrival on the scene, a slow pace, and an adversarial nature. We have recoimnended ending

this split jurisdiction; we have suggested changes in the way Federal agencies manage

their records - physical records and reports. There are also some changes that the

Comnission urges in terms of technical consideration; they involve data standards, data

element names, definitions, codes, improvements in the way in which Federal agencies design

forms, readability standards, compatibility, information sharing, data transfer techniques

and technology.

The last type of change is what I would call an "economic change." If we understand

information as a resource, if we understand it as a manageable resource, there ought to be some way in which we can account for it. The Commission has produced some suggestions,

some thoughts, perhaps even a little bit of wisdom, on an "information resources management"

budget object classification code.

Conclusion

The temptation is great for commissions to serve as kind of hit and run drivers. A comnission, at the end of its tenure, points with pride at its own accomplishment and views

with alarm the work undone. There is a paradox of timing in commission reports. Commissions

are most visible when they deliver their final report -- the very instant their authority,

capacity, and clout to get anything done vanishes. We are more fortunate because the

statute that created us requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit, at six

month intervals for the next two years, reports to the Congress on the status of Comnission

recomnendations , and to propose needed legislation to implement them.

I think it is appropriate to recognize that poets often have more insight than analysts.

I outlined for you the bold and broad mission of the Comnission, and was reminded of one poet who said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, else, what's heaven for?" I suspect

that we have not necessarily achieved all that the Congress or the President desired of us. On the other hand, we can take some comfort and some counsel from the words that Ulysses, in his old age, gave to his colleagues — men who had been with him since the Trojan war. He observed that they were no longer young, no longer vital, no longer vigorous, but still it

should be their resolve "to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield." It should also be ours.

65 Gershenson

Standards for Electronic Data Interchange

Edward A. Guilbert

President

Transportation Data Coordinating Committee

"Standards - standards - everywhere , but not one to fit my needs „ " That

seems to be a hue and cry that is heard in the marketplace of industry and

in the clinical corridors of the government agencies. How often have you

heard the phrase "What we need is a standard - any standard - so that at

least we have a common specification to work from." Then, the first meeting

is called and those companies that have the budget latitude enabling them to

send one representative for one day gather at 10:00 a.m. , break for lunch at

noon, reassemble at 2:00 p.m., and break at 4:00 p.m.

Out of the luncheon portion of that meeting comes the standard

recommended by the six participants. Out it goes to hundreds of others who

are often too busy with other things to send in their vote. And, if they do

send in a "no" vote, they offer no alternatives.

This is certainly not the way the National Bureau of Standards, ANSI,

nor ISO function. But we did find it to be a trend in some of our industry

activities. It was to overcome that type of standards development and

coordination that the founders of the Transportation Data Coordinating

Committee banded together and established a full-time staff capability to

pursue standards for the electronic interchange of data in the transportation/

distribution communities. I am part of that full-time staff and that is why

I am here today to tell you about the Transportation Data Coordinating Committee, its goals, programs, activities, and accomplishments. Of course, I shall do this in a very brief, modest, and humble manner.

The TDCC is not a household word. As a matter of fact, it is a very

select, low profile, "get tne job done right" organization. It is a non- profit center supported by manufacturers, shippers, railroads, motor carriers, ocean carriers, airlines, forwarders, banks, and computer and communications

activities that are dead serious about cutting administrative costs,

enhancing productivity, and making maximum use of current and future com- munications and computer technology.

Right now, each of you are asking yourself "I wonder if my company belongs

to this dynamic organization because we are interested in the same objectives;

Make a note to find out when you report back to your managements on this

conference. Whether your company belongs or not, plan to keep informed of our programs because we are on the glide path to new technological innovations that

will impact on the way your company transacts business in the future.

Now that you know who we are, let me tell you what we are and what we

are doing and why standards are so vitally important. First, we must define

the problem area that we are dealing- with. For example, our members are operationally oriented rather than theoretically or academically or concept

oriented. Why do they need standards? Let's cite an example. From the

order placement cycle, data is entered into their computers. This accom- modates the internal company program requirements for production, inventory,

scheduling, and other activities. But, when the goods are to leave a plant

and go to the external environment it becomes necessary to turn the computer

into a printing press to crank out thousands of bills of lading needed to

turn the shipments over to the carriers. The carriers take these reams of

67 Guilbert
documents to their offices where a battery of coding clerks must code the

shipment details and keypunch the data into their computers. They do this

costly and time-consuming task to create the data base for their operation

and to rate the shipments. This process then creates thousands of freight

bills produced in three-to-ten copies, which must be enveloped, addressed,

and mailed back to the shipper. The shipper receives, opens, and codes all

of these bills, enters the appropriate data back into their computer to

validate shipments, check the rates and charges, and activate an accounts

payable authorization. This starts the next paper cycle which is the check

writing. Thousands of checks are mailed to the carriers or their payment

agent which must be checked against their accounts receivable. Checks are deposited in their bank, cleared, and routed to the shipper's bank and

ultimately mailed as cancelled checks back to the shipper. Now I ask you -- in an age of sophisticated, low cost data systems technology -- is it

practical for a shipper to resort to manual paperwork processing to accomplish

a data flow between computerized systems? Even more parochial is the fact

that the data that the shipper gives a carrier on bills of lading is the

exact same data that the carrier gives back to the shipper on freight bills.

This is but one example of the institutional idiosyncrasy that the paperwork

syndrome has burdened the business community with.

Let me cite just one more example so that you will totally grasp the

importance of standards. These are actual company experiences that I will

describe. Company A places 5,000 orders for products per month with Company

B. The orders are computer-generated but must be printed out and mailed to

Company B. Company B must open envelopes, code and keystroke order data into

their computer to determine whether it is a production or inventory item. When

the shipment is made, an invoice must be prepared on each shipment. These are mailed to Company A (again it is the same basic data that Company A gave to

Company B). Company A opens envelopes, codes, and keystrokes the invoice data

to validate the order requirements and prices. They activate accounts payable

instructions and the check writing process begins. They mail checks to

Company B or his lockbox and again the merry-go-round of the check passing

cycle begins, ending with the cancelled checks back with Company A.

Here is the message! With agreed upon standards, business systems

transactions can be accommodated more effectively, more efficiently, more economically, and without human error by employing Electronic Data Interchange

directly from one party to another. No privacy, security nor data center

problems since we are simply changing from manual to electronic transmission.

The "Preliminary Functional Specification for a Prototype Electronic

Data Interchange System" was produced by the TDCC as part of a contract

with the Office of Facilitation of the Department of Transportation. It

creates the means of electronically exchanging shipping, billing, tracing,

audit, payment, and export and import data. It contains the data elements

and definitions, message formats, transaction sets, segments and segment

identifiers for both domestic and international trade and transportation.

The document reflects the concentrated efforts of some 180 industry and

government experts that reached agreements which enabled this specification

to be used for pilot program implementation, not on a test but on an operational basis. In addition, TDCC has produced a General Communications

Specification, General Programming Specification, and General Systems

Specification.

TDCC is not in a "Users Group" posture, with Electronic Data Interchange

programs for several different applications not being planned, programmed or already implemented. Obviously, until we have live data experience - subject

to full impact analysis - we choose to remain in a pilot program status for

the next two years. We still have much to perfect, particularly in terms of

code improvement, interchange agreements, and tariff modernization.

Guilbert 68
About this time you are probably thinking: "Wait a minute, Guilbert.

You've made a pretty fast trip with an interesting scenario. You've given

us very little on some very sticky technical problems. How about some technical backup on the approach?" First, let me give you some points of

reference which relate to various technical problems. In the end, you should

conclude that we have no major technical problems. Nor do we foresee major

security or legal problems. If we have any problems, it is in the area of

company priorities in terms of resource allocation which is necessary for

progress

.

At the outset, you must recognize that each company selling or buying

goods or services forms an environment within which control can be exercised.

Let us call that the internal environment. In the case of systems, it is an internal systems environment. The style of management dictates the

character of the environment. Some companies completely delegate the management responsibility to the division, plant or group level in a kind of standalone cost center. Each has its own resources and directed profit objectives

Other companies delegate production and centralize financial management.

Still others operate under highly centralized concepts of management. There

are many approaches and all have proved to be successful. It depends on the

type of business and the personality of the management enclave.

The point is, the management concept more often than not dictates the

character of the internal systems environment -- some formed by "islands" of

completely different systems, and others with highly centralized systems.

So we cannot approach this thing we call electronic data interchange with

any all-inclusive set of requirements or a single systems concept. We

must keep the approach loose, with a basic set of principles and some generalized standards. We must depend on evolution to change business

practices -- not revolution. We must parallel proven practices in the

application of technology -- not cause an upheaval. We must exploit

technology to benefit the business -- not to prove a concept. We must allow

the market for electronic data interchange to develop along the path of

least resistance -- not force it into a mold with exotic schemes.

So much for philosophy. How about some principles to back up the TDCC

theory of EDI in transportation and trade?

Initially, we must conclude that goods are manufactured, transported,

and delivered - and money is exchanged as a result of, and on the basis

of, information flowing from one party to another. Information is our target

Information is a resource and, in the business world, it is recycled over and

over - sometimes in the same form - sometimes in modified form - and some- times in consolidated form.

Where does it start - where does it originate in reference to the

physical movement and delivery of goods? This leads me to our first principl

Nothing happens in business without some form of external stimuli. A company

must get an order before any positive action can be taken to move goods. A

transportation company cannot perform a single act of transporting without

a service order or instructions. The same applies to forwarders, consolidators, brokers, and clearinghouses. Further, the money repository - the

bank - takes no action regarding the movement of money without instructions.

As you can see, therefore, this necessary outside stimuli is the principle

of information flow that led to the current condition of a paper-clogged

world. Paper was the best and only media of communications available before

the advent of electronic digital systems technology. Paper served as the

means of crossing the frontier between respective systems environments of

the originator and the recipient. Paper is still the principal means of

communicating between environments.

69 Guilbert
Because each system is controlled by the company, each has assumed a different character with inherent or manufactured standards in terms of

methods and procedures. That process of systems development has carried over

and is reflected in the electronic systems of each company. Comparatively

speaking, we have evolved a multitude of equal but unlike systems. This is

where some problems begin to surface. How do you move from the master/slave

relationships common within internal systems environments which are under the

complete control of a single entity to a broader environment of master/

master relationships between equals? We did it by concentrating on data

and its structure, software, and communications. We established standard

methods, procedures, and structures. The TDCC standards are highly generalized which provides great flexibility for modification, expansion, and

responding to a very wide spectrum of requirements. At the same time, rigid

standards were set for data identification, edit, and control. A standard ' language was created for communication between unlike systems environments

while, at the same time, facilitating the translation from the interchange

language to internal data structures. TDCC focused only on the interface

problem since the internal systems characteristics are unique to each party.

We produced a General Programming Specification which expresses the data

standards in programmer terms. It offers a table-driven approach that does

several things. It allows us to easily modify the standards -- such as introducing new applications, new data elements -- without having to change

the programming system. The system provides an efficient way to assign

incoming data to internal system locations and/or translate expressions or codes from the external standard to those used internally. TDCC fully

recognizes the importance of a standards maintenance facility. We have

programmed the maintenance of all cross-references and can assure an accurate

relationship between the data standards and the programming tables.

Finally, in the matter of electronic digital communications, there are really no technical problems. Parties can arrange to have their systems talk

to one another through any of the existing common communications carrier

facilities. TDCC performed a functional study and concluded that EDI required

such features as distance insensitive, terminal insensitive, and speed

insensitive services. A common communications protocol is highly desirable,

along with link standards, and a form of distributed store and forward

message handling. Communications carriers plan to introduce new services

in the next few years to provide far greater ease in inter-system linkages.

In the past few minutes, I've given you a little theory, some principles,

and some evidence that we have overcome the technical problems of EDI. We are now in the implementing stage. We are refining every day. The number of

active interested companies is growing steadily but surely.

If I wanted to leave an impression with you it would be that industry

is advancing its planning to provide for digital systems to replace paper

methods as a means of transferring information between companies. When the

critical mass of participants is reached, the change will be as rapid and as dramatic as the conversion from propeller to jet aircraft.

As you will recall, I stated at the beginning that my message would be

brief, modest, and humble. I noticed a titter of laughter at that point

and you were right. Thank you.

Guilbert 70
General Concept of a Data

Resource Directory System

C. E. Hankerson

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

1.

Introduction

It is a pleasure to be with you today and to have the opportunity

to discuss with you some general concepts of a Data Resource Directory

System (DRDS)

.

If you accept the view that data is a resource then you will accept

the notion that systems can be designed to record and maintain these

resources

.

Figure 1. There are often data resource usage inefficiencies among

the functions performed by an organization. If these inefficiencies are

to be recognized and controlled, management must eventually inventory

its total data resources to evaluate the overall effectiveness of these

resources

.

A Data Resource Directory (DRD), and its associated system is the

tool by which efficient Data Resource Management can be achieved. It

provides a means for collecting and identifying data resources. Figure 2. The concept of a DRD and its use is designed for all users of data resources. This includes not only Data Resource Managers,

but other users in areas such as Program Management, Records Management,

Forms Management, and Data Processing Management.

2.

Framework of a DRD

A person might ask what is the framework over which a DRD will be

built? What gives it shape?

Figure 3. Well, let me develop a framework for you. If an organization is examined one may find that its purpose and size dictate

a hierarchy of distinct functions. Each function is usually divided into

subfunctions which are defined in increasing detail. This division

continues until the organization has defined its operations at the

lowest meaningful level. The functional division can now be hierarchically

structured as shown here.

3.

Operational Charactistics

Figure 4. Each function can be described in terms of three

components; namely, Inputs, Processes, and Outputs. Inputs are the

'start-up' components on which Processes work. Processes makes possible

the transformation of Inputs into Outputs. Outputs are the results of

work performed on inputs by the Processes.

71

Hankerson

REPRESENTATIVE

MANAGEMENT

AREAS

THAT

WOULD

USE

A

DRD

******

73 Hankerson

Figure
ORGANIZATIONAL

FUNCTIONAL

DIAGRAM

O

Sh3

bO

•H

Hankerson 74
COMPONENT

FUNCTIONAL

HIERARCHY

75 Hankerson

Figure
Since most Inputs were once Outputs (i.e., The Inputs to one Process

are usually the Outputs from another Process) these may

single component; namely. The Input/Output component. In this view of

functional components, entities classified as Processes work upon

entities classified as Inputs/Outputs.

Figure 5. For the purpose of this presentation, four Entity Classes

have been categorized as Processes: PLAN/PROGRAM, SYSTEM, APPLICATION,

and PROCEDURE. Plans and Programs are comprised of Systems which are composed of Applications which are structured from Procedures. This

hierarchy works on Entity Classes categorized as Inputs/Outputs.

Figure 6. For the purpose of this presentation five Entity Classes

have been categorized as Inputs/Outputs: FORM, REPORT, FILE, RECORD,

and DATA ELEMENT. Processes work on Forms, Reports, and Files; each of

which may be comprised of Records, and all of which are composed of Data

Elements

.

Figure 7. When all Entity Classes are combined, we have a component

functional hierarchy that looks like this.

The purpose of structuring this framework in the manner that is shown

here, is for you to view the entities as manageable data resources. You should note that what constitutes an Entity Class is organizational dependent. What one organization may decide is necessary may differ

from what another considers necessary.

4. Data Resource Directory

It is now appropriate to offer a definition for a DRD. A DRD is

defined as a centralized repository of the inventoried data resources

of an organization.

It is important that a distinction be made between a DRD and other

tools that are used in the management and control of data. The

DRD approach is that all data (manual and automated) are resources,

and to better manage this resource pertinent information about it should

be readily accessible to all echelons of an organization. Other approaches

(i.e., Data Element Dictionaries) are mainly used in the management of

computer processed data elements.

Figure 8. In order for a DRD to be effective it must, as a minimum,

serve the needs of managers in the following areas:

ACQUISITION

ANALYSIS

DEFINITION

DESCRIPTION

IDENTIFICATION

LOCATION

PLANNING

REDUCTION

RELATIONSHIP

SECURITY

SELECTION

SOURCE

STANDARDIZATION

USAGE

5. Major Components of a DRD

The major components of a DRD are Entities

are data resources that have distinct existence

and Attributes. Entities

and definition, and are of

Hankerson 76
COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY

(PROCESS VIEW)

Figure 5

77 Hankerson
COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY

(inputs/outputs view)

Figure 6

Hankerson 78
COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY

(ENTITY CLASS VIEW)

SYSTEM

APPLICATION

% r

DATA ELEMENT

Figure 7

FORM 3

S

79 Hankerson
A

DRD

AIDS

IN

THE

FOLLOWING

AREAS

OF

ENDEAVOR 5e = a- = 2«E H" CO

i/> CO

G <

O z

< <

<

Ql o

at

?

U» </>

O 5JJJ CU tu /=v Q D 9

< cl

<

o

o

O

CO

o. <

Q

CO

Z >

o ^

up s

O 5 3

<

D

0 a z

z O

7 “ <<<<<<Z<<< O

OOOODOa.OOOco <<<<<<J<<<SJ

Hankerson

80

DATA

SOURCES

DATA

STANDARDIZATION

DATA

USAGE
sufficient importance to an organization. Attributes are the

characteristics or properties of an entity that define its context.

Several entities may support each function of an organization.

The effective management of these data resources during their concept,

design, development, and usage phases can best be accomplished by their

inclusion in a central referrible repository. This repository can also

be used to bridge the information gap between different organizations,

and functions.

A DRD can be implemented on an organization-wide basis or at any

functional level of an organization. It can be implemented one entity

Class at a time, a combination of two or more Entity Classes, or all

Entity Classes that an organization may decide to include in its DRD

(An Entity Class is a group of entities having common characteristics).

6. Attributes of a DRD

Figure 9. Each entity has inherent attributes. The attributes

recorded in a DRD relative to each entity are its contents. The

attributes recorded reflect the information needs to effectively manage

data resources

.

This list is representative of attributes usually applicable to

each of the entities. Notice that the attributes are listed in terms

of attribute classes.

Attributes classes and attributes may differ among organizations.

It is not the intent of TG-17 to identify all possible attributes that can be recorded in a DRD. Other attributes such as character type,

format, scale, number of copies, type of form, benefits, etc., may be

required. In general, if the attribute data is not used for decision

making, then it should not be included in the DRD.

Figure 10. The attribute information contained in a DRD is usually

a portion of the information that an organization maintain about its

data resources. One organization may record more of its attribute

information than another. This figure is an illustration of a representative ratio of the attributes that an organization may elect to include

in its DRD.

7. Relationships Between Entities

Figure 11. The attribute class called Relationships is extremely

important. Entities are related at various levels in a hierarchy of

functions. They may assume additional characteristics applicable to

these relationships. Relationships fall into two categories; interrelationships and intra - relat ionships . Inter-relationships indicate

the association between different Entity-Classes. These associative

relationships may be categorized as superordinate commensurate, or subordinate. Intra -relat ionships indicate the association between

occurrence of entities of the same Entity Class. For example, a report

entity may be associated with another report if both are produced by

the same procedures.

81 Hankerson
REPRESENTATIVE

ATTRIBUTES

FOR

EACH

ENTITY

CLASS

GROUPED

BY

ATTRIBUTE

CLASS

.

8 8

Z 2

< <

CL St < <£ UJ kJ

ki2

kJo

<

2

<

2

Q

ki

CLO

-Jki>

LJQ

O

kl

ir

)

o

CLQ

St

CLkl ki a o

ki

h-<

o

<

z

o

I-<

QCkl cO

a. <

o _J

kJS

0

kJ

Si2

1

CL kl

ki i—

l~ 5

kl Q

i- kl < 3

Q O

klO kJS

£

LJ>

kl

cl

kJ

Iso

k.

k.0

1 h-3

o

if) F—

ino

o

-I

kJ22

O

in

CL

kl

CL

O

&O

in t

5 «

8 5

F-

_8

%

0.

£L<

O

O

2

0

1

CL<

>-o

2

kJS

Q.3O

>

t

a

3O

ki ki W t ±

kl ki O <3 f f

a: <

ki cl

l- z 2

s

2

kls

£

k,

Z

o

F—O

3

8

CL

CL

a

|KB

2 a

g<i 2 g

E*a

:

>-b

CLs

3

<

2O

P

z

ki

in uj

o cl

co

in<

_i

o

>

2

ki

klS

<

z

-I<

g

k.

k.O

CO

in

CL0

5

1

m

ki _ a

in kiO

z

kl

a:

ki

s

>•z

o

2

>-

CO

CL

kj

k.I-Z

kiO

Z

o

£ fc

CLo

in

kJa

klO

z

ki3O

kJ _

V) in

ki

inO

CL kl q; N 3

0. • •

g

iGLCLO

in

kiO

-J<

CLkJ2

ki in e>

>-t

>- -J b goin2O

CLin

ki

(L

>-CL<

Q2O

kl

in

CLki

Li£

_Jkl

(Lk.O

CLLJ

k.5

ki9 >

LU

o^ u 3 0C

“» <

t- ft£ Z £

2

1

0

ft. 2

0

v

CLki

in § I

>- <

cl g

1 o

± o

CL kl

H

z

ki

253O

O

Q

klO

Z

kl

CLki

k.

klCL

kiO

S

CL

I!! kl

CL

v.ki

£

O

k.

k.O

in

UJ

F—P

Z

kiO

kl

fe

—I

ki

(L

(L1

2

g

in8

to

<D

Pi3

bO

z

UJ

>*

FHankerson 82
OTHER

REPRESENTATIVE RATIO 0F 010 ATTRIBUTE CONTENT TO

TOTAL ATTRIBUTES DOCUMENTED FOR EACH ENTITY CLASS

HI PRO CONTENTS

Figure 10

83 Hankerson
RELATIONSHIPS

BETWEEN

ENTITIES

CD

!hd

bO •H

Ph

84 Hankerson
8. Establishing Relationships

The importance of establishing relationships cannot be over emphasized. The implementor of a DRD has almost boundless options. Regardless of the option chosen, upon identification of an entity, a determination should be made whether or not it has related entities and the extent

of the relationship. The entity identifier attribute is used to record

these relationships.

When all relationships are recorded, along with all other entity

attributes, a network will have been established that will enable one to

retrieve all data of manageable interest. With this network managers

could perform a review of new data or information requirements before

the requirements are formalized or become de facto collection instruments.

9. Capabilities Provided by a DRD

In order for a DRD to be an effective tool it must be capable of

providing information that aids managers in identifying, acquiring,

disseminating, and controlling their data resources. The recording

of the attributes of each entity in a standard manner provides the means for appraising the relative importance of each resource. The

utility of this approach makes available the following list of

capabilities

:

a. The capability for determining the impact of anticipated,

planned or approved changes in systems and implementing

such changes.

b. What applications comprise a specific system?

c. What systems comprise a plan/program?

d. What procedures comprise an application?

e. The reports produced by a specific procedure.

f. The data elements contained in a report.

g. What procedure works upon a specific form?

h. What procedure works upon a specific file?

i. What files are worked upon by a specific procedure?

j . Enhance data standardization

k. What data element comprise a specific record?

l. The inter-relationships among systems.

m. What form is required for a report?

85 Hankerson
10. Goals and Objectives of a DRD

Figure 12. The goals and objectives of a DRD are:

a. Strengthening the management of data resources at every

functional level of an organization by centralizing the

data inventory process, and through reduction of unnecessary

redundancy, unplanned inconsistency and inconsequental data

resources

.

b. Reduce cost of data resources at each stage throughout the

life cycle of the resource: discovering, collecting, recording,

handling, transferring, storing, retrieving, displaying,

publishing, disseminating and disposing.

c. Strengthen data resources, and information about data resources,

to meet the needs of decision-makers, researchers and problem

solvers at all levels of an organization, with less costly

data and data resource alternatives.

d. Permit more efficient determination of the impact of anticipated,

proposed and/or approved changes by those organizational

functions, planning, administering and maintaining plans and

programs, and systems.

e. Establishing appropriate monitors, controls and surveillance

measures to track the progression of a plan or actual activity.

f. Provide and maintain a central repository of data resources

that relates to each function of an organization to service

the entire organization.

g. The ultimate aim is to promote the development of multipurpose, or common and shared use of data resources and discourage the proliferation of narrowly defined data for unique

or special purposes.

11. Functional Requirements of a Data Resource Directory System (DRDS)

A Data Resource Directory System must provide the processes that

allow the DRD to effectively function as a repository of data resources,

and to be responsive to the needs of a wide variety sources and users of

data resources. The basic system must allow for the acceptance, validation, storage and retrieval of many categories of data. The system must

provide for substantial quality control of the directory, minimizing the use of human activity in areas prone to errors in directory input or output. Provisions must be made for DRD growth. Requirements also

exist for an effective method of managing the development and operations

of the system.

Figure 13. The total requirements of the system depends upon the

level of implementation, complexity of the data, and the kinds of users

and their expectations. As a minimum the DRDS must provide for:

a. Data capturing

b. Data validating

c. DRD updating

Hankerson 86
fe^OALS

AND

OBJECTIVES

OF

A

DRD

87

Hankerson

•

Promote

the

common

use

d. DRD auditing

e. DRD activity accounting

f. Interrogating the contents of the DRD

There are other important considerations such as utility functions.

These include retrieving information from the directory, supporting

directory maintenance activities, and the function of maintaining the

integrity of the directory.

12. Summary

Careful planning for a DRD is a must. Policy and programs must be

established to ensure that effective procedures are developed and that

the DRD enables the organization to function in a coordinated manner

and that it interacts within the organizational environment.

Any implementation effort should be guided by a plan that is

designed to accomplish a specific set of Data Resource Management

ob j ectives

,

A DRDS is not a panacea. It merely provides a more organized access

to essential information upon which sound and effective decisions can

be based.

89 Hankerson

International Standards Activities

of the Economic Commission for Europe

Eugene A. Hemley

National Committee on International

Trade Documentation (NCITD

)

30 East 42nd Street

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

has a program for the improvement of documentation and

related procedures which impede the conduct of international trade. This effort has been assigned to a Working

Party on Facilitation of ' International Trade Procedures

which has divided its work under a Group of Experts on Automatic Data Processing and Coding (GEl) and a Group

of Experts on Data Requirements and Documentation ( GE2

)

Standardization work at present under GEl is addressed

to subjects such as Data Element and Codes, Trade Data

Interchange, and Aligned Documentation and ADP. Under

GE2 , subjects being covered include a Unique Consignment

Reference Number, Legal Questions and Problems, Import

Documents, Dangerous Goods Documentation, and Definitions

of Documentary Functions. Participation includes most

European countries, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the

United States, and the thirteen public and private international organizations.

Key Words: Alignment ;dangerous goods; automatic data

processing; common access reference number; data requirements; Department of Transportation, Office of Facilitation;

documentation standardization; Economic Commission for

Europe; import documents; export documents; legal questions;

National Committee on International Trade Documentation

(NCITD); United Nations; Working Party on Facilitation of

International Trade Procedures.

1. Introduction

Although I am the Cardis Program Manager for the National Committee on International Trade Documentation and can supplement during the question

period any of the information just given by Bob Cavanaugh on Cardis, my role

at this point is to tell you about the role of NCITD in relation to the

1 CARDIS Program Manager, Cargo Data Interchange System.

91 Hemley
standards activities of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

This presentation should be given by Mr. Arthur E. Baylis, the Executive

Director of NCITD who has been an advisor to the Department of Transportation

the official United States representative for the ECE meetings, for the past

eight years, but unfortunately this meeting conflicted with the ECE meetings,

and Mr. Baylis is now in Europe at those sessions. Since the Bureau of

Standards work with ANSI and the International Standards Organization can better be covered by others at this meeting, I will concentrate my remarks on

the ECE work in the standards area.

2 . Organization

The ECE program for the simplification, standardization, and reduction

of documentation and related procedural requirements that impede the conduct

of international trade has been assigned to a Working Party on Facilitation

of International Trade Procedures. Because of the diverse subjects which can

be covered under this heading, the Working Party has divided its work into

two major subjects which are handled by special Groups of Experts. These are

Groups of Experts on Automatic Data Processing and Coding (GEl)

and

Group of Experts on Data Requirements and Documentation (GE2)

GEl, the former, covers the application of data processing to international trade transactions and GE2 , the latter, concentrates on the simplification and standardization of applicable documentation and related procedures

2.1

Task Teams

Even this division of the work was not sufficient and further organizational breakdown was found to be necessary for the specific topics being

handled. These task teams with countries assigning chairmen are as follows:

GEl ADP and Coding

1.1 Data Elements and Codes (Sweden)

1.2 Trade Data Interchange (U.K.)

1.3 Aligned Documentation and ADP (U.S.)

GE2 Data Requirements and Documentation

2.1 Unique Consignment Reference Number (France)

2.2 Legal Questions and Problems (International Chamber of Commerce)

2.3 Import Documents and Procedures (Czechoslovakia)

2.4 Alignment of Additional Trade Documents (France)

2.5 Dangerous Goods Documentation (U.K.)

2.6 Definitions of Documentary Functions (Canada & USSR)

In relation to this task team organization, it is anticipated that the

work of Task Team 1.1 and 1.2 will be combined to address the inclusion of

data elements in a message structure. With the work of the task team being

scheduled for completion in 1978, it is contemplated that future assignments

of this type will be given to individual rapporteurs, or chairmen, who will

organize their own working sub-groups.

Hemley 92
2.2 Organizations

Although this is primarily a European commission as noted by its title,

the scope of its work has attracted the participation of many non-European

countries such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and the U.S. Attendance is

good and about 24 countries are regularly in attendance at the quarterly

meetings in Geneva. However, because of travel expenses, it is anticipated

that meetings in the future will be reduced to two a year. In addition, seven public and six private international organizations are also represented.

These include:

Central Office for International Railway Transport

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

Customs Cooperation Council

European Economic Community

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Inter-Government Maritime Consultative Organization

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

International Air Transport Association

International Chamber of Commerce

International Chamber of Shipping

International Organization for Standardization

International Rail Transport Committee

International Union of Railways

3. Coordination with International Organizations

An important function of this work is coordination with other international and national groups addressing the specified subjects. This vital

coordination role is recognized by all participants as necessary to prevent

duplication of effort or the creation of separately developed different

standards on the same subjects. Parallel action which is beirtg monitored

includes

:

Customs Cooperation Council (CCC )- work on development of a modernized,

expanded Harmonized System of Commodity Descriptions and codes.

Inter-Government Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) - report on dangerous goods documentation and its 1977 Assembly which will specifically

address the acceptance of electronically processed shipping documents.

International Association of Ports and Harbors - work related to international trade facilitation of which Mr. Baylis is one of the special

advisors

.

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) - working party to study trade

facilitation matters with the socialist countries. Mr. Baylis is Chairman

of this working party.

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance ( CMEA

)

- work on simplification

and standardization of trade documents.

93 Hemley
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) - work on maintaining country codes and money codes.

4. Subjects Under Study

The topics being actively addressed by the task teams include the

following

:

Currency codes - The merits of 2 alpha or 3 alpha codes are being

explored and rationalized.

Country code - There still are several different codes in use and

interest is shown in having a cross-reference matrix for the ECE 3 digit

numerical code the UN numerical code, and the ISO 2 alpha and 3 alpha code.

Ships name codes - There are problems in maintaining the 60,000 ships

radio call signs of the International Telecommunications Union which will be

addressed in a special ITU Conference to overhaul the system. The Economic

Commission for Latin America (ECLA) is considering a revision and an alternate system based on the ISO 2-Alpha country code.

Port Location Code - This work has been expanded to include not only

seaports but airports, frontier crossing points, rail stations, and Customs

ports

.

Terms of Payment - The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and

others, are submitting their versions of studies by Romania and Belguim.

Packaging Code - Various existing systems are being reviewed before

preparing a consolidated recommendation.

Data Elements in Maritime Transport Documents - Extensive work on this

subject has been done by the NCITD Cardis Committee who prepared a listing

of the data elements used in the Bill of Lading and the Commercial Invoice

with a breakdown by fields, elements, alternate names, definitions, and

current coding. These lists were the basis of the U.S. submission to the

ECE task team working on this subject.

Security Problems - Several countries has submitted papers on this

subject which has been extensively studied by the NCITD Cardis Committees.

Trade Data Interchange Messages - Extensive work is proceeding on this

subject also being studied in the Cardis report.

Unique Consignment Reference Number or Common Access Number - This

project is devising a unique number by which shipments can be identified

along their route from shipper to consignee.

Legal Problems - This subject which is reviewing possible legal problems

in considering the transition from paper documents to data processing has

also been extensively studied by the NCITD Cardis Committees. Possible

problems relate to the requirements for signatures or other methods of

authentication contract of carriage, negotiable instruments and evidence.

Hemley 94
Import. Documents and Procedures - This subject has received much attention in the United States. The U.S. Customs Service working with the advice

of an NCITD committee has recently revised the Special Customs Invoice form.

Customs Form 5515 to conform to the alignment standards of the U.S. Standard

Master. Work is now proceeding on the revision of Customs Form 7501. This

information is disseminated at the Import Documents and Procedures task team

for use of countries importing to the United States and to request similar

simplification in other countries.

Dangerous Goods and Documentation - This deals with the classification

of dangerous goods and use of special data elements. NCITD has been doing

extensive work in this area with industry and government, and has helped

extensively in preparing the U.S. position. The varying approaches of

carriers, shippers, and lawyers have been consolidated and a workable position has been reached. It is expected that the Task Team will complete its

work this month and present its position to IMCO.

5. Conclusion

As you can see the work of the ECE related to international standards

for international trade is heavily oriented towards documentation and data

elements used in information processing. With United States industry's

efforts proceeding at full speed towards simplifying international trade

documentation and implementating a Cargo Data Interchange System, it is most

important that the work of the ECE in this area not only be carefully monitored but that U.S. positions be strongly represented.

95

Hemley
V / : ' . . • AS .•

I, ' ' ">
THE FEDERAL INFORMATION LOCATOR SYSTEM*

FOREST W. HORTON, JR. - STUDY DIRECTOR

Summary

Unprecedented Federal demands for information from the public and the severity of duplication in these overlapping requirements

emphasize the need for coordinated action to reduce these

burdens. The lack of a systematic and on-going mechanism to

identify duplication and other reporting burdens imposed on the

public has, more than any single factor, hindered dealing with these

problems. The Government cannot identify the information that is currently being collected, where it is located, or how new reporting requirements relate to information that is already available. Effective solutions cannot be applied to a problem not adequately identified. The Commission recommends the development of an inventory of these public reporting requirements. The inventory would be a

single, authoritative register of all Federal reporting imposed on the

public. Much like a catalog or index used in libraries, subject terms

describing the general contents of these reports would be used to: • identify duplication in existing or new reporting require- ments;

• locate existing information that may meet the needs of an agency and thereby promote sharing to avoid duplication; • provide a central coordinating mechanism for Federal, State and local government requirements for information; • maximize the use of information by identifying available information for Congress in drafting legislation and information for the executive branch in operating programs; and

• make visible public burdens from this reporting so that

effective action can be applied to reduce these burdens.

This registration, inventory, and index mechanism is named for the

function it will perform—the Federal Information Locator System. It

is an essential tool for improving the performance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the agencies under the Federal Reports Act.

The locator system concept builds on capabilities already in existence, but scattered among many Federal agencies. A few

States and local communities also have developed this approach.

Effectiveness and simplicity in design and use will depend on a

carefully phased, coordinated development plan, with pilot testing at each stage. Full participation and involvement of agencies, and

other organizations in private industry and professional organizations, will be elicited. Their expertise and experiences will be drawn

upon to the maximum extent. - The step-by-step evolution from concept to an operational, pilot- tested system will require a minimum of from three to five years. An

estimated $1 .2—2.4 million will be required to develop the prototype system based on the exact number of pilot test areas selected, and

other considerations. The Commission has recommended that three or four major functional areas be selected for detailed investigation, such as energy, health, education, procurement, business financial information, and information on State and local government.

Additional funds would be required to extend the system, once

developed and tested, Government-wide. Annual Costs of S750,000

are projected to operate the system once it is developed and put in place. These cost estimates are broad approximations based on an

extension of the experiences and costs incurred by individual Government agencies and private organizations in similar efforts. Therefore, the cost estimates should be viewed as indicating the

relative ranges for the amounts involved.

In view of planning and coordination needs, and the time required to achieve a working system, the Commission recommends that the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget organize a task force to begin work toward the development of this important tool to reduce the paperwork and red tape burden on the American public.

Commission on Federal Paperwork

July 15, 1977

97 Horton
L

introduction

Eliminating duplication and unnecessary differences in the information requirements imposed on citizens, businesses and others by government first requires knowledge of what information is already

available within government, and what is planned to be collected- In short, an index or "locator system” is needed for this purpose. Once

existing and planned data are identified, the nature and severity of duplication can be determined and steps then taken to control it. The Commission documented in several of its studies that duplication and overlap in information collected from the public by multiple government agencies is a very serious problem. While eliminating duplication will require extensive and detailed work to settle the

differences among program officials and agencies with similar data

needs, what is missing to make the first step is a tool to help officials quickly and efficiently learn what information is already on-hand, and planned for collection. The problem is, the Federal Government does not now know what

information it collects, with what frequency, from whom, and for what uses. A single, comprehensive, and up-to-date inventory does

not exist. The consequences of this “knowledge gap" are far- reaching and mostly negative.

Filling this gap requires a Directory of Federal Information Resources and a Dictionary of Federal Data Elements. The Directory would

serve as an index to existing and planned information resources, and the Dictionary would serve as a central, authoritative compendi- um of standard definitions for common terms and abbreviations used throughout government.

Like all tools, the effectiveness of the Directory and Dictionary depends upon:

• how well these tools are designed to serve the purposes for which they are intended;

• how efficiently the tools are used; and

• whether or not incentives and sanctions are appropriately applied to insure that the tools are used when, and only when, required; and for the purposes, and only for the purposes for which they are intended.

In short, if management is not involved at each stage of development, testing, and implementation, or is lax in attitude toward

enforcement of its use, it will be ineffective. The Commission’s Study of Duplication The need for a Federal Information Locator was identified in the Commission's Duplication study. That study examined the reporting requirements of cne important business sector, food chain stores. The Association of Food Chains established a paperwork task force

to provide the Commission with an inventory of Federal reporting burdens placed on its members. The inventory identified 128

Federal forms and reports which must be submitted to Government

agencies either voluntarily or mandatorily. Subsequently, the Association furnished a list of recommendations and complaints that included several cases of duplication. Forms identified in these

complaints were used to initiate an analysis of duplication, including

its significance, the manner in which it occurs, various types of duplication, and its severity. Additional forms were selected as

potentially duplicatory based on the form titles, subjects covered, or requesting agencies. The analysis included forms from six agencies:

Department of Labor (DOL); Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Federal Trade Commission (FTC); Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Department of Agriculture (USDA); and Department

of Commerce (COM). Subject categories included: Business activi- ty/Product; employees; ownership; property; legal; respondent

organization description; Securities; and finances. Examination of these forms and reports revealed that “duplication” was not a unitary concept but one that requires three categories to

differentiate between levels of likeness and severity:

• identical duplication;

• similar duplication; and

• generic duplication.

In degree of likeness, identical duplication is the most specific because the information requested is, by definition, exactly the same. However, in degree of severity, generic duplication, repre- senting groups of related data, is the most severe.

Identical duplication occurs when two or more individual elements

of data have the same definition or meaning. The nomenclature used

to describe the two elements of data may differ, but if the definitions or meanings are the same, identical duplication exists. Similar duplication involves individual data elements related to the same specific subject, but with minor differences in meaning. For example, if one report asks for the "dollar amount of a certain line of merchandise bought and resold at retail,” and another asks for the “estimated percent of total sales," rather than dollar value for merchandise, similar duplication is considered to exist. Generic duplication occurs where two or more reports request groups of data that relate to the same subject. Another way of expressing this is to say that similar duplication involves differences

in definitions at the individual data element level whereas generic

duplication involves dissimilarities in definitions of broad groupings

of data. For example, in examining five major groupings of business

financial data—gross sales, expenses, income, assets, and liabili- ties—alt three duplication conditions were noted. In some cases

individual data elements exactly duplicated one another—identical duplication. In others, individual data elements relating to the same

major grouping (e g., gross sales) were similar, but were defined

slightly differently—similar duplication. And, in looking at several major groupings of data as a whole, such as expenses and income,

there was significant disparity in how they were defined and treated as between two or more different reports—generic duplication. The study revealed that duplication is substantial and does impose

severe burdens on respondents. This severity can be expressed as a percentage of total data elements in a single report that are

duplicative of those in another report. In all of the cases analyzed,

the occurrences of duplication ranged in severity for the three levels of defined duplication as follows:

Identical duplication 10% 65%

Similar duplication 9% 50%

Generic duplication 29% 92%

These results indicate that the most severe form of duplication is generic. It represents the greatest burden on respondents because

respondents must collect multiple sets of data and maintain multiple records for the same subject. Problems are often created in reconciling different sets of data and certifying their accuracy. In some instances, additional collection and reaggregation of data become so burdensome on respondents that estimates are submitted rather than data representing actual situations.

Identical duplication presents relatively less of a problem to respondents because once an element of data is collected, compiled, and available to the respondent, it can be furnished in identical form to as many requesters as required. Substantial burdens are presented when respondents must separately count,

tabulate, and maintain data to reflect differing time periods or

slightly different aspects of the same subject. This problem is prevalent in both generic and similar duplication. Thus, reduction of

similar and generic duplication can produce greater relief in respondent burdens than will the reduction of identical duplication.

Reducing Duplication Requires Knowledge of What

Information Exists The Locator System has two parts. The first is the directory of reports and other information. This would be the index component

which identifies what types of information are already on-hand and

planned, with references to where they are located. The second component is the dictionary of standard terms, or data element

dictionary as it is conventionally called. Common use terms and their standard definitions would be alphabetically listed, cross-referencing the use of the term to agency, information system, and report

form. One of the principal uses of the directory will be to identify duplication in both existing and planned reporting requirements. The

data element dictionary will be used to help resolve differences in definitions for similar data elements.

Horton 98
The Information Directory The problem in identifying duplication without a systematic mechanism can be illustrated by the magnitude of Federal public use

reporting. There are .approximately 10,000 different Federal public use reports, requesting close to 1 .2 million elements of data from the

public. Lacking a mechanism to track and manage such vast

quantities of report data, the total size and character of duplication cannot be measured, nor can all cases be identified, nor (most

importantly) can future duplication be avoided.

Controlling Future Duplication. For paperwork and information

duplication to be controlled and reduced it must be caught in the

early information planning stages. The locator system would serve as a planning activity across agency lines and thereby encourage

sharing and illuminate significant gaps and redundancies in Government’s information. More specifically, the use of a locator system as a planning tool could:

• Assist agencies in planning, coordinating, and evaluating

their information requirements more efficiently and effectively since they would be aware of what already exists or that which is planned to be collected;

• Maximize the use of the data and information already

available in the Federal establishment, thereby avoiding the unnecessary recollection of duplicative data from the

public, and the establishing of redundant and costly new

information flows;

• Assist agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, by serving as an authoritative, consolidated master reference index of agency data holdings and record systems, properly indentified as (1) open to public access or (2) not to be disclosed, as the case may be;

• Help detect, identify and root out generic, similar and

identical data element duplication in information flows and

individual documents (such as public-use reports), and

thereby reduce and control existing as well as potential duplication and overlap;

• Serve as a research and analytical instrument to help

detect, identify, and correct gaps in existing data, document

and literature holdings, where agency information require- ments are unfulfilled, partially fulfilled, or inefficiently fulfilled; and

• Serve as an authoritative, centralized reference and finding aid to assist both citizens and organizations within the

private sector, as well as officials and others within the Federal establishment, to identify the existence of, and

locate efficiently and accurately, data, document, and

iiterature holdings within the Federal establishment. But again it must be emphasized that the usefulness of the locator as

a tool is largely dependent on the extent to which management

supports its use and its enforcement. Tool to Support The Reports Clearance Process. The Commission’s Clearance, Statistics, and Information Resources Management studies all pointed to the need for a comprehensive index of Federal data and document holdings if the clearance process is to operate effectively and efficiently to control the proliferation of public-use reports. The locator mechanism would register, inventory, identify, and index the subject contents and other characteristics of all public use reports, thereby filling a management knowledge gap that now prevents public use reporting problems from being

effectively addressed.

Both agency level clearance offices and the central clearance

authority in OMB could use the locator system to determine whether

or not the information they plan to collect is already available, or whether existing data, while not identical, may serve the agency's needs and thereby preclude the collection of new data. Duplication From Overlapping Program Responsibilities. An

important cause of duplication is the extensive overlap between and among agencies involved in the administration of the same or similar programs. For example, the 1975 Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance contained 1,009 programs administered by 55 Federal agencies. The number of programs and agencies have continued to increase. One means of ascertaining the character and magnitude of agency

overlap in program administration is to examine the budget functional classification scheme. Functional classifications have been used

for many years to display the President's Budget in a limited number

of categories according to central purpose, regardless of administering agency. Under the new congressional budget process,

functional classifications provide a framework in which the Congress can make and communicate its decisions allocating Federal resources among competing national priorities. A few examples illustrate the potential for overlap and duplication in collecting information from the public. For example, Budget Function 306 deals with Federal energy programs. At least seven major

agencies collect energy information: Agriculture, Environmental

Protection Agency, Federal Energy Administration, Energy Research and Development Administration, Interior, Federal Power

Commission, Commerce and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Many other agencies also collect energy data. The Commission’s

energy study extensively documents the nature and extent of overlap in the Federal energy information areas. This overlap is shown in Figure 1, which lists the Federal organizations 1 operationing 279 energy programs. Eighty-eight different data bases are operated by these agencies to support the programs. Information on

coal is maintained by 36 agencies; information on natural gas by 37

of these agencies. These overlapping information collections were

identified with the Federal Energy Information Locator System

(FEILS) operated by the Federal Energy Administration. Based on

these general identifications, the system further identifies specific cases of duplicate data in related collections. FEILS is one of several systems that demonstrates utility of the locator system

concept.

In other examples, Budget Function 403 deals with advancement

and regulation of commerce. Information in this area is collected by

the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development as well as by the General Services

Administration, the Small Business Administration, the Commodity

Futures Trading Commission and several independent regulatory commissions.

1 A number of the organizations have been subsumed in the new Depart- ment of Energy.

99 Horton
OVERLAPPING

ENERGY

INFORMATION

SOURCES

Horton 100
Information related to community development programs (Budget and Function 451) is obtained by these Federal organizations: the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce,

Agriculture, and by the Community Services Administration and ACTION. Here again, potential overlap is extensive. As a fourth example, Budget Function 741 (dealing with enforcement and

prosecution) will include, at a minimum, the Departments of Justice; Health, Education, and Welfare; Treasury; the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission; and many regulatory commissions.

This kind of listing could go on and on. Because no comprehensive

cross-agency and cross-functional inventory of existing and

planned Federal information requirements has ever been undertaken, the full and true extent of overlap and duplication of information requests is unknown. An example of the direction that should be

taken in identifying and cataloging information resources is the 1976

Federal Information Sources and Systems directory prepared by the General Accounting Office as part of the Congressional Source- book series. This directory describes recurring reports to Congress

as well as executive agency systems containing.fiscal, budgetary, and program related data. The Data Element Dictionary A locator system will help find similar information that may already be available, and where it is. After these data have been identified, the problem that must be resolved is use of the identified data for alternative purposes. The solution must center on meaning and

usage. A large number of existing data elements have the same name but

different meanings among Federal agencies. This finding—docu- mented in Commission studies on energy, public health, and welfare and financial reporting of companies—demonstrates the need for a

Federal data element dictionary. The dictionary would facilitate the use or sharing of data for multiple purposes by providing:

® All meanings for commonly used words, terms, names, and

abbreviations;

• A standard definition for each meaning; and

• Identification of agencies using which meanings for what

purposes, and in which information systems, reports, and

records containing the data.

Standard and uniform terms and definitions not only help insure and

safeguard the integrity of data, but also provide us with a practical guide to help sort out meanings, users of data, and uses of data, by

specific function centers. Data must not only be defined in terms of what it does represent, but also by what it does not represent. Need for Information Processing Standards

Another prevalent problem relating to the lack of standard meanings

for common use terms and names is the structure and manner in which data are represented. In manual systems or records the problem is relatively minimal. There, the human mind and eye can

assimilate a variety of representations for the same information and compensate for the differences. However, these differences present

a greater problem when data are compiled and exchanged using modern automation and information handling technologies. For example, the lack of consistency and standards for citations shown on catalog card entries in libraries was one of the major

factors inhibiting automation of an index to the vast literature holdings of the Library of Congress. Further, the exchange and

assimilation of data where a State, for example, is represented as N.

Car.; NC; or 18, becomes extremely difficult. And the representations of a single author as: John William Jones; and J. Jones, create separate entries in a bibliographic index as if these were different people. The differences create finding problems for users of an

index. Where a system cannot assimilate these differences to produce a

single reference entry, this assimilation burden is placed on the

users. Thus, the utility of information is substantially reduced in the absence of standard terms and definitions. The Dictionary of Federal Data Elements will serve as a reference to standard terms and definitions as well as an enforcement tool for the

application of these standards. It would be linked to the Directory of Federal Information Resources to identify the location of data elements in various Federal reports, records, and collections. Each

standard will encompass nomenclature used to identify the element

of data, its definitions, and technical specifications for representation of actual data values for the element.

101

Horton
The National Bureau of Standards, in its Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS), has already developed a guideline for documenting descriptive information for data elements. This guideline should be used as the basis for a Dictionary of Federal Data

Elements. And the data standards already developed by the

National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Computer Sciences and

Technology, should be incorporated into the Dictionary.

In short, the Dictionary, like the Directory of Federal Information Resources, would provide a single, central, authoritative reference

for Federal data collected and in use. The application of standard terms and definitions would increase the quality of data collected, and improve the utility of data already in use. It would also facilitate the sharing, interchange, and multiple use of existing data and

thereby preclude duplicative collection of data already available. Central to all of these points is management and control. Not a New Idea Data element directories and dictionaries are not new or revolution- ary concepts. Their use is widespread in Government agencies and

private industry. A sampling of these locator systems examined by

the Commission is shown in Appendix C. Although effectiveness

varies from system to system, the basic conceptual, technical, and economic principles of these systems were found to be sound.

II. How the Locator Would Work

The Locator is essentially a finding tool, using an index of subject terms or descriptors keyed to report contents. This type of index is substantially smaller and provides greater utility than an index

containing discrete data element names.

In brief, the system would work as follows: • Agencies planning to collect information from the public would be required to structure their requirements in terms of key characteristics (see Figure 2 for a list of suggested

characteristics).

• Each of these characteristics, including the subject descriptors, for a proposed new report would be entered and

registered in a centralized, automated indexing system as a

"report profile". • These profiles (whether for proposed new reports or

revisions to existing reports) would be matched against

existing profiles and would be made available to a central review office authority as well as the agency reports officer. • Instances of identical duplication would be examined first. The burden of proof would be on the requesting agency to demonstrate why it could not use identical information already available.

• Next, similar duplication would be considered. (The utility and need for a Data Element Dictionary are evident here.)

• Third, generic duplication would be addressed, again

involving the Data Element Dictionary.

• Proposed reports would be registered in the system and

available for reference and coordination with any other requirements that may simultaneously be in the planning

. stages. Some evidence indicates that when crises such as

the energy crisis occur, there is a "shotgun" effect whereby many agencies rush to collect the same or similar information simultaneously.

• After agency coordinations have been effected, and ex- change, sharing, access, confidentiality and safeguard

constraints identified, the planned requirement would be

formalized for respondent coordination to determine: — availability of the data; — quality in terms of accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and relevance;

— undue burdens that may result from the planned require- ment if implemented (for example, if the collection would

impact a respondent or respondent category already

overly burdened); — suggestions for alternative data that would still satisfy the basic requirements, albeit in less than “perfect” ways (for example, sampling);

• A case file containing correspondence from all of the agencies and other parties, and documenting their positions and decisions, suggestions from respondents for simplifying and streamlining proposals, and a highlight summary of decisions/actions for top review authorities at both central and agency levels would be prepared. Even though Commission studies demonstrate that the problem of duplication can be clearly seen in public use reporting programs,

eliminating this duplication requires cooperation and extensive work

to settle the differences among program officials and agencies with

similar data needs. The Commission is proposing the designation of selected "focal agencies," or "centers," to coordinate the information collections of similar programs, on a continuing basis, such as

energy, health, education, procurement, business financial information, and information on State and local government. In the first four areas, there is already extensive work being performed to develop an information locator capability. These centers would do much of the data collection, but would be principally responsible for planning, coordinating, and developing standards applicable to data

collections in their fields and providing technical advice and

assistance. Interagency ad hoc efforts to control and resolve

duplication should be backed by OMB pressure to exhaust all practical alternatives for eliminating duplication.

FIGURE 2 PUBLIC USE REPORT PROFILE

SERIAL REFERENCE NUMBER

TITLE OF FORM OR REPORT

DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION OF CONTENT AGENCY FORM OR REPORT NUMBER

DATE INSTITUTED. MONTH. YEAR

DATE TERMINATED AGENCY NAME

ORGANIZATION NAME PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: • Delivery of Benefits, Services or Aslstance • Regulation or Enforcement * Licensing * Public Safety * National Defense

* General Government Management and Administration * Revenue Collection BUDGET FUNCTION CODE

ESTIMATED START-UP COST

ANNUAL OPERATING COST FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AGENCY ESTIMATE OF RESPONDENT MAN-HOURS PER REPORT SUB- MISSION RESPONDENT ESTIMATES OF MAN-HOURS PER REPORT SUBMISSION NUMBER OF DATA ELEMENTS ON FORM OR REPORT

ESTIMATED CHARACTER VOLUME PER SINGLE RESPONSE

SUBMISSION IS: ^Mandatory • Voluntary REPORTING IS: * Full Coverage * Sampling DATA COLLECTED IS: * Available • Restricted DATA IS: * Automated • Manual RESPONDENTS ARE: * Identified * Not Identified DATA IS USED FOR: * Policy Making * Program Planning • Operation * Program Management and Administration * Program Evaluation * General Purpose STatistics RESPONDENT CATEGORY

SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT CONTENT OF DATA COLLECTED FORM OR REPORT IS * New * Revision • Replacement Termination

1.2

3 . 45 . 6.7

8910

11 . 12 . 13. 1415 . 16

17. 1819

20

21. 22

23

2425

26

27. 28

Horton 102
III. Management Strategy To Design and

Implement the Locator System

In view of the complexity and magnitude of the task to develop a comprehensive locator system, the substantial investments in human and financial resources, and the time required, the Commission recommends an incremental, evolutionary approach.

Moreover, the magnitude of public-use reports alone dictates the need for a pilot test. This test would encompass three or four major

functional areas, such as health, education, energy, procurement,

business financial information, or information on State and local governments. FEA is already underway with a locator and a

dictionary, referencing data in all Federal energy programs. EPA is underway with its own directory, as are the health and education

areas. Lessons learned could be used to refine the initial design

before Government-wide extension. Moving from the system concept to a cost-effective, operating system will not be easy. Nor will it be inexpensive. Important and

long standing policy, social, political, and economic issues must be

addressed. They include:

• The need to insure that the public understands that no

personal or proprietary data will be contained within the system;

• The need to couple the use of the Directory and the

Dictionary as management tools with strong congressional

backing and executive leadership, including appropriate sanctions where necessary, to maximize interagency sharing once the system is put in place and begins operating;

• The need to make the system simple, both in concept and in operation; if it becomes complex, users won't use it. and

data will become obsolete and unreliable; • The need to build the system, both conceptually and

operationally, carefully and incrementally; a consensus will have to be reached between conflicting interests at many

milestone points that will require sensitivity and attentive- ness to the unique and special needs of agencies and

missions;

• The need to insure that the Dictionary, particularly, does not

strangle communications. In the end, uniform terms and

standard definitions can be an aid to communications, and

can result in substantial cost savings and improved program

effectiveness. But standardization for standardization’s sake is always a real and present danger, and oftentimes

leads to false economy;

• The need to solicit the involvement and participation of the many experienced and interested agencies and other organizations which have already followed this path within

their own areas, both to help build a consensus by building a

stake in the outcome. And to familiarize them as major users and data suppliers of the System;

It is recommended that the strategy be one of careful pilot testing in three or four selected areas with appropriate provision in the plans and timetables to solicit the views and suggestions of a broad crosssection of agencies and elements of the private sector. This incremental approach seems superior to a "grand design" because

information technology itself is still rapidly evolving, and it is extremely important that involvement and commitment at agency

working levels be solicited at each stage in design, development, and testing.

Building and Operating the Directory and Dictionary The proposed file of information would be constructed in four

building block stages:

• Stage 1. (Fact-Finding): Select the three or four pilot test areas (e.g., energy, health, education, procurement, busi- ness financial information, and information on State and

local governments); investigate the current public-use

reporting locator/dictionary systems and practices in use in those areas; identify key features, facilities, values, and

potential problems in terms of the design of a comprehensive system.

• Stage 2. (Design): Design and develop a prototype locator system for pilot testing in the selected areas.

• Stage 3. (Evaluate Results): Evaluate the results of the pilot

test, and assess changes, and effect changes, for improving

the prototype system.

• Stage 4. (Test Pilot System): Implement and operate the

pilot test system in the selected areas for a period of time, perhaps one year, to detect problems before extending the scope and use of the locator to other areas. This approach permits periodic management assessment of both conceptual and operational problems, and permits corrections and

modifications to be made before extensive resources are irrevocably committed. Additionally, it is conducive to consensus-building among participating agencies. Locator systems, data directories, and data dictionaries cannot be addressed in a vacuum, but rather must be considered in the light of their applicability within overall agency organizational missions, programs, and systems. Therefore agencies must coordinate locator specifications carefully with both

their policy and operating levels to insure that the locator system's

role has been properly defined within the operating environment.

IV.

Costs of the Locator

Feasibility, Development and Testing Stages (Start-up) The estimated cost for stages 1 -3, designing and testing a prototype

system, would range from $1 .2 to 2.7 million expended over a 42-64 month period. The range is representative of the exact number of

pilot test areas selected, differences in system complexity, the degree to which existing software can be adapted, and internal coordination necessary to develop acceptable requirements and

design parameters. Operational Stages

It has been estimated that annual operating costs would average

approximately $750,000 for 10 staff members and purchased

services on a time-shared computer system (see Figure 6). The one

year costs for pilot testing the system in selected areas (Stage 4) would approximate annual operating costs. Even though selected areas represent a small segment of reporting which the system would eventually encompass, the pilot testing would be intensive in problem solving and coordination. The detailed cost basis for both start-up and annual operating cost estimates is presented in Figures 3 and 5. And these tasks are described in Appendix B. The cost estimates are summarized by

task and function in Figures 4 and 6. The one-time start-up cost elements for stages 1, 2 and 3, represent a standard series of functions and tasks required to develop and install a system as an

operational reality. It should be emphasized that these cost estimates are, at best, very broad approximations, based upon

limited data. And therefore they should be regarded as only

indicative of the sizeable amounts involved. The recurring annual

operating costs are .based on a series of tasks required to operate,

maintain, and deliver services of the system. This operation is viewed strictly as a support role to agencies and to a central management organization, both of which would deal with the substance of the information contained in the system. For comparison purposes, agencies operating similar systems were

contacted to obtain costs for start-up as well as annual operation. None could extract and supply start-up costs separate from overall annual personnel costs for the organizations involved in the effort. In almost every instance, annual operating costs are embedded in staff and hardware expenses supporting a multiplicity of functions. Thus, these specific costs cannot be isolated for comparison.

103 Horton
Horton

C CM

o? 2

^ ub

o> o V- ^ - d>

~ o i2 f I CO to s &

3 's I $

— — ro G|I

- I

S 2 ? CNJ CO CM

8>o?

* 4

hiT) t O

S O. CL W OJ o

<D 2 CO CL D O

0)

0)0 0. £|S

S§8 C 0) o

0 p- S Q 5 O)

(D o «

ra f TM

m ro «> <u £ X3 1o i£n _

D. ° ra §£§

o E t CO JO o o 2 c

~ o-S.®

c

O 0^-0

_ ^ W £k

<£ O 3 M Q.

HI m

o « a® 2g§g - 2a££ o?^ g

oq o £ _ o g flS£]§

C g O o IB

0) >< <D £ V> Q. u ^ fr, <

D

a o ° C

d ra o .3! c

O _i C >N O

CO *

o <

o

Li. "O

UJ O

CO

ccr>o

3

o

c

(1) <

0

0

O0

a

3r

ra 2)

CDE1

cO

c ~o o c

•43 03 C i2 E 0

CD £

0 2 O 3

- cr c 0 o

0 2

•s».i 0 O

> c

C 3 '

0

JD

jc0

>

03

E

0

0

~o

~oc

03

c" cv? 8^

0 =

$ -Q £ 8

c

O) '00O

E0

T30

0

T>

03a.0

7<

*o3

X)C X03 CO C <03^

*7S C/3

m

co

0o

o

0

Clm

~o

- c

03 03 .E c

E 03

~oC c 0 o

j? 2

00 0

in S .2 < £>

ra ? £

o y

d .£

0)

a »o 0 ^ 43

Q. O

E E c

0

U)0

TD e

0 E £ O 1 ^

03o 0 0

ro ra fc 3 u_ 0 >s 5 -^ u

a> c/3 CL H CO

zz J5 <u in o S Q- ^ 1

1 1 1 ro < w CO 1 1 1 1

• •

g d

I

^ & §

8 I < CO

0

tro

Q.0

0

in3

jQ3

Q_O

E 2

0 CL 0

£ I

o) ro £ CL

03 0

H CL

C/3 0

o

Q.O

JC0

3

ac203 Q

0

o

c

03Eo

t:0

CLE0

0

>N 0)

CD

i <

co

0

o

•Oc

0

0 0

> ID 0 C D O

II</5 F

>. E W 5

II II I I I

£*0

3

in -g 0 0

o o

0 o o

0 0

n 'n 3 3

co co

h>

i <

0

0a

c

0

0

0

in tro

CL0

03E 0 o > 0

I §

30 0

C °

0 ~

1o |E

Q. J= 0 0= ^ -8 0

a

0

LU

cl a) < T3

0)S « w 3

104
1

0

Z .I 8

CE

CE C

S.1 <o £ 0 o

Si O

LQ Q. 8

CE b

<3 0 Z

(f) 0

Z o Q z t- z < 0 <_i

CE

111 H as

0. CL d? CEr5 o

J o

aE

(S) UJ<2

i

<S) LU

COO

CQx

TDC

O'Q.Q. <

05

0505

3 _

i

S 6 i < E. 5 1*

5 .«

S' §

ab E ! 8

o

<= ^<*> g>£

i ®

0) IS 5 si

Ji _

—5 IB

'£ *g

<3i &

e t; « 11 £

if.

1

*

© 4/5 o

® ® 1

5

« 5

*" s 8>

g ! 2

i

S' S

<S“

©

8 8 E o> II

m

*u 8

0

°

u. >• T3 c 2 o3 t 05 3 03 1 8

in <u UJ < c

CC </> .Q 3 "5

“ra O o 5- E

O b

05 C £ 1

2

"8

85 o 1

to £

>-. 05 c o> C (0 < C

o

o.;

x c

CO 85 co o

<t CO o £ c .5

05 ~

05 5

CO 2

3o

85 oc

a>CQ % s; s °

Q. C

0) 05

1- O)

85 &

05 ? tr o o

=5 CL

•Q o> O-TOc o

05 c £

3 o 2 -D

CO 0

CL CO

- £ >

' cr y

co

</)0 ^ - > ^r

>o

c0

O)

03

</) co

oSo

~oo

E

"D D

C C o

03 0 T”

0*

(/) m

E E 0

o o

O CA ltT o ^ c

o

0

c

co

o X 03 CO C

CD E

"(f) 0

0 w

« s gu/ 1 8 33 —

o 05 CO 8= o ro, . o O 85 o

Q- S £ £ t

E o o

CO 05 Q. t 05 o

'- o 05

(/)

<0 § 05 .y 9- Q. > s 05 Z5 o: a

o5 b

° o.

05 O , 03

Q.O

O

JsC c

ra 3D

05

05 >_ = o

£

b c ° c ~

5- O C

iz ~ 0)

CO "OC

Q. 05 «

C a!

85

053

CT0)

CT5 CD

05 b

3

o

o

Q05O

Cl

05

3

T3O

c

O

Q.

05 T3

05

CQ

05 CO

05 O t ^

oa ^2

2 (X

85 CO Q.

05 C

05 .2 E co

’*? .y

05 "O o «

o w

£ ®

a. cc

sl

1

«

8 g £ I

o ^ a c

•C 85 o TO

05 C

o> o

-O Q.

05 O 85 © *“ X3 T3 3 C

05 (0 oc C CO O

05 a> O 05 a

°b

s ^

b §

85, Q.

CO s s;

i i

CQ

'—

'

0

0

O

C0

0

*0

o

Q.0

00

c0

C0

c

‘03 1

w

O)c

~o

(T3 k—O)

Ql

13 *oc

03c

o

CU 2

H

1

1

°8

t- cn i

I

105 Horton

COPJiBINEO

LABOR

AND

EQUIPMENT-
Horton

106
V.

An Ultimate Locator System Concept

Once the Directory and Dictionary system are established, further opportunities would exist for tying these facilities into other management controls and management systems Such links will provide

maximum access to Federal information sources. A fully developed

Federal Information Locator System would consist of three components. (See Figure 7 for a graphic illustration of system components

and a description of their functions.) • The Directory of Federal Information Resources would be

the nucleus of the system, its essential requirement. Once

the Directory contains a listing of public use reporting

information, it can be expanded to include: — interagency reporting information; — internal agency reporting information; — coordination with the holdings of the States and with the

private sector; and — data and document holdings of Government information

centers, clearinghouses, libraries, and record depositories.

• The Dictionary of Federal Data Elements would be a listing of commonly used words, terms, and names used in Fedetal

information and reporting systems. For each entry, the

dictionary would provide standard definitions where they

exist as well as the idiosyncratic meanings used by specific agencies.

• The National Information Referral System would be a communications link giving people access to the locator system no matter where they may be geographically

located. The key elements in the locator system that should be immediately

designed and operated are the Directory of Federal Information Resources and the Dictionary of Federal Data Elements. The Federal Information Locator System concept and the Congressional Sourcebook Series have essentially the same basic objective:

indentify available information resources. The Sourcebook Series is designed as a service to aid Congress in carrying out its oversight and budget control responsibilities. It identifies relevant and reliable information about legislated programs. The locator concept embodies this service objective as well as congressional and executive

objectives of reducing Federal reporting burdens imposed on the

public. The locator system, to provide these facilities, must contain

profiles of more than 10,000 existing public-use reports as weil as

planned new reporting requirements. Identification of these resourc- es would be extended to assist information planning and coordination at all levels of government so that public burdens arising from

overlapping Federal, State and local requirements can be reduced.

FIGURE 7 THE PROPOSED FEDERAL INFORMATION LOCATOR

SYSTEM

A finding tool for:

• Public use information

• Inter- and intra-agency data bases

• Statistical data bases and

recurrent publications

® Information holdings of government information

centers and libraries • Records and archival holdings

of government

• State and local govern- ments

Standards for:

® Data elements

• Data representations Derived from:

• NBS

® ANSI

® Agency Data Element

Directories

Terms Names

Definitions Abbreviations

A communication link for:

® Federal information centers and clearinghouses

® Federal libraries ® Federal archives, records

centers, and repositories * State and local libraries and records bureaus

107 Horton
The locator should service the public as well as the government.

Information contained in Congressional Sourcebook Series along

with other government and private sector sources should ultimately be incorporated into the locator system. The Congressional Information Sourcebook will thus provide an important nucleus for this service. The objective of the locator in its ultimate form is to facilitate the flow of information between the public and the government. Scope of the Locator System

The locator, to be an effective tool for identifying duplication as well as available information resources, must encompass all reporting imposed on the public. The locator is thus viewed as a mandatory

register of all Federal public use reporting. Commission studies, along with other independent studies, have revealed that a considerable number of Federal reports levied on respondents do not appear in the OMB or GAO inventories of cleared reports. Some of these reports are excluded from the clearance process while others were implemented without complying with clearance requirements. The locator must encompass these types of reports as well as those

that have been cleared along with all new reporting requirements. The locator must thus be treated as a mechanism for registration and identification of reporting. The resolution of duplication and

other problems arising from this reporting must be addressed as a

separate issue relating to the clearance process.

If the locator is not treated as a mandatory register, the search for available data will be limited to existing cleared reports or new

reports subject to clearance by OMB or GAO. The results of such a search would leave out a significant portion of Federal data

collected from the public. The utility of the locator as a management,

planning and coordination tool would be seriously deficient in scope

and coverage.

Next Steps The Commission recommends that a Locator System Task Force be

established by the Director of OMB immediately to begin the long and difficult planning process. Initial representation is suggested in Appendix A for regular members. However, wide ad hoc participation in planning and system design and development is suggested because virtually every major agency in the Federal establishment has a substantial stake in the locator's design and operation. And

many, beyond those listed in Appendix A, have substantial expertise

in designing their own agency locators which should be tapped

early, in planning stages, and later in the design, development and

testing phases, including representatives of State and local governments.

Participation from the private sector is also crucial. Both individual citizens and organized sectors of the economy such as business,

agriculture, and industry must be represented. To this end, a working group representing the public sector should be established as a public advisory body to the Task Force. The Locator System Task Force should set as its first priority the design and testing of a Directory of Federal Public-use Reports in one or two of the pilot program areas (energy, health, and so on). The principal work tasks are outlined in Figure 3. Once implemented, the locator will, of course, require routine maintenance, selective enhancement, and refinement. The key

activ ties associated with system operation—that is, recurring cost

items—are summarized in Figure 5. Initial cost estimates for these

activities are given in Figure 6. And eventually, once a locator is in place and operating, many other advantages should become

apparent, and their feasibility should be addressed at the appropri- ate time, as shown in Figure 7.

Horton 108
Appendix A: List Of Organizations For

Potential Representation

On The Directory

Development Task Force

(Not inclusive)

From Government

• Office of Management and Budget

• General Accounting Office

• General Services Administration-Automated Data & Tele- communications Service (GSA/ADTS)

• General Services Administration-National Archives & Re- cords Service (GSA/NARS)

• National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Computer Sci- ence and Technology

• Library of Congress, National Referral Center

• Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service

• National Library of Medicine

• National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

• Smithsonian Science Information Service (SSIE)

• Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary (DODOS)

• Defense Documentation Center

• Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

• Logistics Data Element Standardization and Management

Office (LOGDESMO)

• Census Bureau

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

® National Association of State Information Systems

• National Association of State Budget Officers

• National Science Foundation

• Civil Service Commission

Private Industry

® Information Industry Association (IIA)

® American Federation of Information Processing Societies (AFIPS)

« American Society for Information Science (ASIS)

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

• Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA)

• Association of Records Manuals and Administrations (ARMA)

Public Representatives

• Consumers

• Privacy experts

• Other groups

109 Horton
Appendix B: Task Descriptions

One-time Start-up Costs

Functional Requirements and Performance Specifications (A- D

This set of specifications, in the form of a feasibility study, will be the primary operational product of the development task force. It will describe what the system is to consist of, and what it must do as well as not do. It will be the basis for subsequent software assessment and system design. It would represent the combined views of agency participants, the task force chairman, and the final approval

authorities. The costs represent a full-time task force professional

staff, with clerical support, ranging from eight to fourteen people for a duration of 12 to 16 months. Time and costs for participating agency membership on the task force and parent agency review are

not included. Assessment of Software Applicability (A-2) This function includes an assessment of currently available, operational software systems that can meet the requirements and

performance specifications for the directory. The assessment would

include issuance of an RFP containing specifications and evaluation

of proposals submitted. Solicitation of proposals would include

selection of a software system, as well as an operating hardware

environment. The latter is assumed to be obtainable from among

existing time-sharing systems owned, leased, or contracted for on a

service basis by the Federal Government. The assessment, including preparation and issuance of an RFP,

evaluation of results, and selection would be performed by the task

force within a 6 to 9 month period.

Detailed System Design Specifications (A-3) Based on functional requirements and performance specifications, and the selected software system and operating hardware environ- ment, the system will be designed and detailed specifications prepared.

This function may be performed by the task force, by personnel

selected from agency resources, or by assistance of a contractor. For the latter twc cases, it is assumed that a component of the task force will oversee the design activity and results. The system will be

implemented using the approved design specifications. System Implementation (A-4) This function may be performed by either Federal personnel resources or contractor personnel or some combination of both. It will be managed by the task force. The basic assumption made for

this function is that an existing software system or package, with minimal modification or definition for directory application, will be

used. A major portion of the implementation may encompass system

parameter definition of recurring as well as ad-hoc demand

reporting capability. File maintenance, index creation and keying

capabilities will be existing features of the software selected. Implementation will be based on test data as well as a sampling of actual cases. The test material should be developed by the task force and made available during submodule design. System Installation (A-5) This function will overlap with the preceding implementation task and will be performed in parallel with the subsequent task of vocabulary creation for subject terms and respondents. This

function should be performed with a portion of the group used for system implementation. The most intensive and time consuming aspect will be the preparation of public use reporting profiles, entry, creation of a data base, and review and correction of the results. It is assumed that responsible agencies will prepare their own report profiles based on

guidelines and materials furnished by the task force during training sessions. The review, data entry, and correction of these profiles will be conducted centrally. Results of corrections and modifications will be returned to agencies to provide examples for improvement in quality of subsequent profiles. Training costs for presence of agency personnel at training sessions are not included. Also not included are the agency costs for preparation of their form profiles. A range of 1 to 2 hours per public use report profile can be used.

For this estimate as well as data entry, an upward limit of 10,000

public use reports is assumed. This would include those reports under the responsibility of OMB and GAO, those excluded such as

IRS, and those which may be bypassing present clearance procedures. An actual form or report count estimate is used in lieu of clearance cases at OMB since many single cases contain multiple forms. It is also assumed that data from profiles will be entered in free form as off-line batched input. Corrections will be made using

on-line, interactive facilities of the system.

After the "live" data base has been created from actual profiles, the system would be operated on a turn-key basis by the group

responsible for installation. During this period, the performance will be monitored by the task force, change modifications will be defined and implemented, and the system will be accepted for delivery as

operational.

Creation of Vocabulary and Authority Lists (A-6) The foundation for this function will have been developed during performance of the requirements function and refined during the design function. This foundation consists of developing a set of subject categories and subject terms or descriptors based on actual examination of public-use reports. The "tentative" vocabulary would be issued to agencies for preparation of report profiles. After these profiles have been entered into the directory system along

with terms or descriptors suggested by the agency, they would be

reviewed and modified to prepare a thesaurus of authoritative public use reporting descriptors.

This function must be performed by a group experienced in subject indexing and thesaurus building. The skills are identical to those

found, for example, in the Defense Documentation Center, National Technical Information Service, NASA's Scientific and Technical

Information Facility, the Library of Congress, or commercial abstracting and indexing services.

Initially, during the requirements and design stages, the work of this group should be based on suggestions from agency program and

subjecting indexing personnel where available. The actual review of public use forms by the central group to develop subject terms will consist principally of a review of material prepared and submitted by

agencies. For ease of focusing on the efforts and estimated costs,

all preparatory work supporting the vocabulary aspects of the requirements and design functions are included under this single

function. It is assumed that this group of specialists will be available

for the duration of the start-up from requirements determination through final installation, delivery, and operation of the system. A

nucleus of this group wguld be retained for recurring annual

operation to perform vocabulary control and review of agency

profile inputs. The respondent categories and classification schemes will also be handled by this group.

It is assumed that the system will have a global correction capability

for both subject terms and respondent categories. Thus inconsistencies creating stray entries in a composite index could be corrected

in the original source profiles that generate these entries. Not included in these estimates is agency assistance in developing

subject terms and classifications that describe the types of respon- dents to reports. Considering the billions upon billions of dollars the Federal Govern- ment has invested in its data and literature holdings, expending a

figure of $ 1 —3 million to develop a tool to help officials and citizens

find their way through the labyrinth of filing cabinets, computer data

banks, library bookshelves and dusty archives does not seem, to the Commission at least, to be an inordinately high number. Nor does

three to five years development time seem excessive, given the enormity of the task and the need to carefully build a consensus at key decision points. Establishment of a Central Form/Reports

Reference File (A-7)

This one-time function involves setting up a file in public use report

serial number sequence. Each file will include a copy of the report or

form, the profile sheet submitted by the agency, and copies of correspondence and related materials residing in present OMB and GAO files.

Horton

110
Recurring Annual Operating Costs

Cost estimates in Figure 6 are based on annual professional and

non-professional staffing level and major equipment costs for performance of each function. The workload level includes an

assumption of 1 ,000 new, planned report requirements per year. The

number of requests for services from directory facilities have not been made. The service functions have been identified with a minimum staffing level indicated. The performance of some functions are similar one to another. In these instances the staffing and

costs have been shown for a single function with an appropriate cross-reference from the other function. Basic assumptions for annual operation and staffing are as follows: Management, Administration and Agency Coordination (B-1)

This function includes management of directory facilities and

operations, coordinating public use reporting profile requirements

with OMB and agency management, coordinating the entry and

maintenance of reporting profiles with agency program planning and

information management, managing vocabulary control for indexing and retrieval, managing system maintenance, and planning for inclusion of other information resources in the directory. Preparation of Public Use Report Profiles (B-2) This function is performed by agencies when planning new report requirements. It consists of completing the Public Use Report

Profile. Costs are not estimated, although 1 —2 hours each for 1 ,000 new forms can be used as an estimate of labor requirements. Input Entry of Public Use Report Profiles (B-3) Where agency volume warrants a terminal, profiles would be

entered directly by the agencies. Labor costs have not been

included although a half hour each for 1 ,000 new reports can be

used as an outside labor estimate. Provision has been made for a

single data entry person at the central location to process input for those agencies without terminals. For equipment costs, rental of 50

terminals is included with connect time and file access costs. Review and Update of Subject Descriptors and Respondent

Categories (8-4) This function is performed by agency personnel working in conjunction with the locator vocabulary specialists. The objective of this function is to improve the quality of indexing and thus location of information based on results from inquiries to the system. New terms would be added to the vocabulary as well as terms that more

specifically describe subject content. Adjustment of the vocabulary will optimize search results by

encompassing all reports relevant to an inquiry and minimize the number of non-relevant identifications. Adjustments to respondent

categories will be used to produce better profiles of reporting burdens on segments of the public. Agency participation in this fine- tuning process is essential to effectiveness of the locator as a

finding aid. Review, Correction, and Entry of Modifications to Agency

Public Use Report Profiles (B-5) This function is performed by the directory staff after profiles have been entered into the system. Staffing and cost estimates for this function are included in "Revision, Standardization, and Mainte- nance" (item B-1 1). Processing and Storage of Profiles (B-6) This function involves only hardware costs. It includes CPU time and

annual file storage costs. Principally the function consists of reorganizing files and creating inverted indexes for direct access to any item profiling forms.

User On-Line Access to Profiles (B-7) This function is performed by agency users where terminals are

available. Provision is made for directory staff support where

terminals are not available in agencies for OMB information management offices. Total hardware costs for access are estimated. These costs include listing results from an inquiry.

Servicing User Requests for Blank Copies of Forms and

Reports (B-8)

Initially the directory services will include furnishing copies of forms

referenced by an inquiry. Hard copies of these forms will be

maintained in a central reference file until such time that microfiche

sets become feasible for distribution to large volume inquiries. Hardware costs for forms reproduction service are shown. However, labor costs for this service are shown in "Maintenance of a

Central Forms/Reports Reference File” (item B-1 2). Production of Report Products (B-9) This function involves periodic production of standard recurring

report products. It is essentially a self-generating function that involves no significant labor costs. Labor support, when required,

will be covered by the staffing for function "System Modification and

Upgrading” (item B-1 3). The hardware costs do not include reproduction for distribution outside OMB and each agency infor- mation management office. Production of One-Time Specialized Report Products (B-10) These reports are essentially those that have not been anticipated in advance and must therefore be developed to answer specific requests. Staffing to support design, development and generation of these reports is included in function "System Modification and

Upgrading" (item B-1 3). The costs shown for hardware include utilization to develop and

produce these one-time reports.

Revision, Standardization, and Maintenance of Subject and

Respondent Descriptors (B-11)

This function is performed by experienced indexing, vocabulary

control, and thesaurus development personnel. It consists of maintaining consistency in both subject terms or descriptors and

respondent categories to prevent spurious references It also includes the development of new categories and classifications as

well as insertion of "blind" or "transparent" cross-references in the

dictionary. Hardware costs are included for access to modify and

maintain the vocabulary. This function will diminish in need after the

first three years of operation.

Maintenance of a central Forms/Reports Reference File (8- 12) This function involves control, maintenance, and services from the hard-copy reference file of public use forms. These files include a copy of the blank form, the form profile, agency correspondence

coordinating the need and exchange of data with other agencies, coordination correspondence, containing respondent comments, an

impact statement, and justifications for not using existing data resources or incorporating respondent recommendations into the new reporting requirement. System Modification and Upgrading (B-1 3) This function will be performed by personnel experienced in use of the software system selected for the directory. It includes trouble shooting modifications to the system to correct problems, upgrade

capabilities, or incorporation of changes requested by management. The staffing will also support development and generation of onetime specialized reports.

Ill Horton
Appendix C: Exemplary Locator Systems

Examined

EXEMPLARY LOCATOR SYSTEMS* DATA CATALOGUE

DATA DICTIONARY DATA DICTIONARY/DIRECTORY DATAMANAGER

DB/DC DATA DICTIONARY SYSTEM

LEXICON UCC TEN DATA DICTIONARY DARCOM DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY

INDEX TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLICATIONS

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD DATA

INDEX

D-20 DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY INFORMATION ROMTS CONTROL AUTOMATED SYSTEM

FEDERAL ENERGY LOCATOR SYSTEM GENERAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYS- TEMS DIRECTORY RECORDS ASSOCIATION SYSTEM II DEFENSE INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM

NATIONAL REFERRAL CENTER

DIRECTORY

AIDS DATA ELEMENT MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION DATA Element dictionary DATA LABLE CONTROL SYSTEM

CATALOGING AND INDEXING SYSTEM CURRENT RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM

NATIONAL TECHNICAL information

SERVICE SYSTEM

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER

SYSTEM ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INFORMATION SYSTEM

MEDICAL LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS WATER DATA SYSTEM WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM HIGHWAY RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM

TRANSPORTATION NOISE RESEARCH

INFORMATION SERVICE TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXTENSION SYSTEM NUCLEAR DESALINATION INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFOR- MATION SYSTEM NATURAL HISTORY INFORMATION SYSTEM

NATIONAL SCIENCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE

LOGISTICS DATA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

PROPONENT ORGANIZATIONS* SYNERGETICS CORPORATION

CINCOM SYSTEMS. INC IBM MSP. INC IBM ARTHUR ANDERSEN AND COMPANY

UNIVERSITY COMPUTING COMPANY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - ARMY

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - ARMY

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION** COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - NAVY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NATIONAL REFERRAL CENTER

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

US COAST GUARD

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - ARMY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION**

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION**

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANO

SPACE ADMINISTRATION SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

• Some system titles and organization names are abbreviated. •• Subsumed in Department of Energy.

Horton 112
THE URGENT NEED FOR

ENERGY INFORMATION STANDARDS

(TO "Btu" OR NOT TO "Btu")

Richard W. Kline, Jr

Office of Energy Systems Data

Energy Information and Analysis

Federal Energy Administration

Washington, D. C. 20461

1. Background

In 1973, the Arab oil embargo forced the United States, and the world,

to look closely at the problems of obtaining oil in the face of scarcity.

This in turn precipitated national concern over the total energy picture here

in the United States. The spectrum of energy related problems — supply,

resources., demand, distribution, conservation, price structures, etc. —

received unprecedented attention and the development of policies and programs directed toward providing near and longterm solutions assumed high

priority. Of course, one of the first tasks involved gathering information

about energy.

The need for large amounts of energy information was widespread and the

Federal government became, probably, the most active sector in collecting

data about energy. Jurisdictional responsibilities associated with the

energy crisis were spread throughout Federal departments, agencies, administrations, and commissions. What resulted from this decentralized management

of the nation's energy problem was, among other things, a proliferation of

energy information gathering activities. There was, for the most part, a lack

of coordination both within the Federal government and between the Federal

government and the energy industry. Wide variances in reported data cropped

up everywhere. As an example, in January 1975 official estimates of American

imports of oil ranged from 6.3 million barrels per day to 9.1 million barrels

per day. That's a difference of over 50% in less than four weeks time and was hardly the ideal situation for developing policy and programs which deal with

U.S. dependence on imports of Arab oil. The credibility of energy statistics

published by the Federal government became suspect and it followed that the

policies and programs which relied heavily on a credible information base

became equally suspect. The public, the energy industry, and the Congress

openly criticized this lack of credibility - and rightly so.

113 Kline
Senator Jackson of Washington summed it up when he stated* during

hearings on energy problems that:

"We still do not have the facts we need to make

sound national economic and energy policy.... We

don't have accurate figures on stocks, on demand,

on costs, on imports, or virtually anything else

. . . .most of the confusion surrounding energy policy

...is the direct result of inaccurate or inadequate

information.

It was painfully obvious that effective management of the energy crisis

would be closely tied to the development of a reliable, consistent, and

credible information base.

One of the first positive measures taken toward improving the quality of our energy information was the formation of the Federal Interagency Council

on Energy Information (FICEI) in December of 1975. The FICEI serves to

identify and initiate programs for coordinating and improving the energy

information activities within the Federal government. Later, in August of

1976, Congress passed the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA) . The

ECPA has, among its provisions, a specific directive which created the Office

of Energy Information and Analysis (EI&A) within the Federal Energy Administration. EI&A was charged with developing a National Energy Information

System to meet the nation's requirements for reliable, coordinated, and

credible energy information. President Carter's National Energy Plan (April

1977) specifically addresses the need for "reliable information on energy

matters." And most recently, the Department of Energy Organization Act,

passed in August 1977, further emphasizes the role of and requirement for

high quality energy information. In short, the Federal government has

recognized the problem and is setting up the machinery to analyze and solve it.

2. The Problems

The problem is not that we do not collect enough energy information.

Preliminary survey results show that the Federal government has over 250

energy information systems in operation. So, quantity is not the problem.

A great deal of data is transferred from the energy industry to the Federal

government and within the Federal government, but the communication of the

meaning -- the understanding — is often not. Problem number one, then, is

the clarification of misunderstood or ambiguous information . As an example, let's consider the reporting of "inventories of residual

fuel oil" for a particular month. On the surface, this seems to be a fairly

self explanatory piece of information and reporting this data would seem to

be relatively straight forward — not so, unfortunately. Some definitions

for residual fuel oil include only No. 5 and No. 6 grade fuel oil as residual

fuel oil while others include No. 4 in addition to No. 5 and No. 6 grade fuel

oil. Often, no definition at all is provided. But, if we finally get the

definitional problems ironed out, can we then be confident that we know what

the inventories of residual fuel oil are? Not yet. Some firms report as "inventory" those products which they have contracted to buy but, possibly,

have not physically received as of the day the report is rendered. Given

that we can also clarify the intended meaning of the term "inventory", we may still not have the complete understanding of the volume data reported.

*U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations Current Energy

Shortages Oversight Series, The Federal Energy Office: Hearings Before the

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 9 3D Congress, 1st Sess., 25 January

1974. Part 5. Page 597.

Kline 114
Since the physical characteristics of petroleum products change with

temperature, we would also need to know if the reported volume data has been

normalized to a reference temperature and pressure. Failure to account for

pressure and temperature variations can induce errors up to 10% or more. There are many more stumbling blocks which must be overcome if we hope to

gain a full understanding of the data. The point to be made here is that

information (data) may be exchanged but, through a lack of specificity, the

exact meaning of the information is not exchanged. This places the burden

of "filling in the blanks" upon the recipient of the data and opens the door

for introducing large errors. A second problem with our energy information involves duplication — or industry and government needlessly. In the case of "near-duplications," the

problems of data comparability are compounded. Often we discover data

collection systems which appear to duplicate one another, but when we crosscheck one against the other we find they are not in close agreement. This

weakens our confidence in the data of both systems and further tarnishes the

credibility of Federal programs based upon the data. Actually, each system

may be producing quality data, but, because we do not know the specifications

which drive the system's performance, comparisons between the output data

fall apart.

A third problem centers around the triple role which the Federal government assumes when it (1) performs its energy regulatory function, (2) develops

policies and plans to manage national energy programs, and (3) conducts

research and development aimed at solutions to energy problems. The types of

information collected to support these three functions differ in their level

of detail and focus. These differences are often not recognized and

frequently result in errors due to improper use of the information . Data systems designed for regulatory purposes characteristically focus

upon a very narrow band of information; for example, "increased crude oil

costs for Aviation Jet Fuel incurred two or more months before the reporting

period and not recovered through the reporting period". Statistical systems

address broader questions such as average costs for all crude oil, while

research and development oriented data systems may seek information about

crude oil production costs using advanced high technology recovery systems.

Each system is getting data about "crude oil costs", but that is where the

similarity ends. Accordingly the energy information community must find ways

to keep these data distinct and thereby discourage improper use. There are, no doubt, other problems which should command as much attention as these I have listed (we seem to have no problem with the supply of

energy problems — just the energy) , but these three specific problems share

a commonality in that they can be solved, for the most part, through the

application of an effective energy information standards program.

3. The Solutions

In order to establish a credible base of energy information it will be

necessary to eliminate definitional ambiguities, consolidate the duplications,

and increase the specificity with which we collect and use energy information.

A comprehensive energy information standards program seems to offer the most

promise for getting "on- top" of these problems early. Standards provide the

rigid detail required to preserve clarity and precision in the terminology

and definitions, establish a basis for comparing and controlling the independent generation of new and potentially duplicative energy information systems,

and mandate the specificity required to guide our collection and publication

efforts away from improper use of the energy information.

115 K1 ine
More specifically, what is called for is a program which includes

standards for: terminology, nomenclature, classification and coding structures, data elements, data items, units of measure, conversion factors,

analytical methodologies, data collection/publication formats, and disclosure

of data sources and data quality. Such a program, though perhaps not

exhaustive, will provide the set of "tools" necessary to work on the energy

information credibility problem.

Standards for terminology and definitions will remove the ambiguities

associated with collecting and reporting energy information. Providing

specific, comprehensive, and accepted definitions for the basic vocabulary of

energy information establishes the foundation for efficient and effective

communication. Once this basic vocabulary is standardized, the building

blocks are available to standardize the data elements and data items which

are used in the data systems. These are, of course, the most critical parts

of the standardization puzzle because they represent the energy information

questions that are asked and the responses that are supplied. At this level,

communication must be precise. Otherwise, the objective of the standards

program is lost.

Units of measure, conversion factors, analytical methodologies, and

operational measurement procedures cannot be overlooked. After all, most of

the energy information collected is numerical data. Imprecise measurements,

analyses, and conversions will completely negate the large effort expended

to gain a precise definitional base. As an example, much of the value of

knowing precisely what is meant by "U.S. imports of Arab oil" is lost if we have no precise means to determine "how much" there is.

A frequently overlooked need is the requirement to have standards

covering disclosure of data sources and data quality. In other words, "Where

did you get the data?" and "How good is it?" Often the user gives only

passing notice to either question until his program "slows up" because of bad

data. Then the questions of "Where from?" and "How good?" are suddenly of

great concern.

In the name of humane treatment for both the respondents to energy

information questionnaires and the end users of energy information publications, I have added the requirement for data collection and publication

formats. Everyone seems to be collecting energy information these days, and,

if they do collect it, it’s a good bet that they will publish it in at least

some unofficial regard. Some common format for collecting and publishing

energy statistics would certainly be welcomed. The goal, of course, is to

make data easier to supply, collect, and use for all segments of the energy

information community.

So much for what we need by way of energy information standards. The

next question is how do we get them developed and working?

A review of the strengths and weaknesses of other standards programs

leads to the following set of conclusions:

a. Standards must be produced in an enviroment which encourages the

participation of, and comment by, all segments of the community

impacted by the standard.

b. Standards must be produced in a timely fashion in order to prevent

their becoming obsolete before they become operational. As Federal

energy information requirements change, energy information standards

must provide a current and stable foundation to ensure high quality

information systems.

Kline 116
c. Standards must be produced through a centralized coordinating

mechanism with sufficient influence to resolve conflicts and

maintain the standards program on schedule.

d. Standards must be developed which are capable of operating in the

automatic data processing (ADP) environment.

e. Standards must be developed to provide sufficiently comprehensive

coverage of the subject area without becoming "diluted" in an attempt to "stretch" applicability beyond the necessary bounds.

f. Standards, once developed, must be maintained and updated as the

requirements for information shift.

Recently, the Federal Interagency Council on Energy Information put

together a plan for the development of a comprehensive set of energy information standards such as we have discussed here. The approach breaks the

overall energy information problem into three dimensions: energy information

uses, energy information commodities, and energy information standards.

Using these three dimensions, the program subdivides into energy information

standards cells as shown in Figure 1. In this fashion, a large undertaking

is broken into smaller efforts, allowing for multiple coordination within and across the three dimensions of a structured problem.

Of course, once the candidate organizational framework is developed, the

next question is "Who will do the job?" The Department of Energy seems to

be the logical choice and, as a matter of fact, the ground work is already

being laid for this task. But, the Department of Energy can not do it alone.

Experience has shown that standards developed unilaterally, and in isolation,

are by and large ignored. As such, the participation of the industry, the

ADP community, the state and local governments, as well as the Federal

government is required. DOE is in the best position to take the lead and

manage this program, make the critical decisions necessary to keep it going

and productive, and provide the resources to see it through to the end.

However, the standards generation activities must be a team effort on the part

of the entire energy information community. The firsthand expertise of the

energy industry, a working knowledge of the energy information requirements of

government, and the experience of the data processing community must be tapped

and coordinated if any success is to be achieved. Standards development is

not a limelight activity and standards work is by and large a thankless task.

Nevertheless, the energy information community is now acutely aware of the

urgent need for energy information standards and the time to get started is now.

117 K1 ine
Figure 1 . Federal Interagency Council on Energy Information

Standards Cell Matrix

Kline

118
Criteria for the Selection of

Data Dictionary/Directory Systems

Bernard K. Plagman

DBD Systems, Inc. 77 No. Centre Avenue

Rockville Centre, NY 11570

(516) 678-1447

With the recognition that data Is a resource with corporatewide impact and policy implications, many organizations are con- sidering various tools to assist in the task of administration and

control of data. The most important of these tools is the Data Dictionary/Directory System. Many commercial software products

are available to fulfill this need with varying characteristics

and capabilities. This paper presents an approach to the selection

and evaluation of a DD/DS including a uniform set of evaluation

criteria for the comparison of these packaged software systems.

1- Introduction

A Data Dictionary/Directory System (DD/DS) is a software package designed to assist

the Data Base Administration function of an organization in the coordination and control

of data resources. It has been formerly defined as-J "The central repository of information about data in an organization."

The DD/DS can be viewed as an application whose primary users are systems and end- user personnel involved in the shared use of data resources. The advent of data base

management systems (DBMS) has allowed users of data to share a single physical representation of a data base without undue sacrifice in operating efficiencies. The use of

the DBMS has made this possible at a technical level by delivering data independence in the form of separation of the physical representation of data from the logical user’s

view of the same physical representation. However, the DBMS alone cannot coordinate and

control the shared use of data resources. To accomplish this it is necessary to support

data resources in a manner similar to the way other corporate resources are managed.

Typical resources found in most organizations include money and merchandise.

Management in instituting programs to effectively utilize these resources find it necessary to appoint individuals to be responsible for the coordination and control of each

respective resource. Thus, a Controller is responsible for the organization's financial resources and the Merchandising Manager for its inventory. These individuals, in turn,

have found it difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill their jobs without the support

of automated systems to help manage the resource. Thus the emergence of Financial Control

Systems and Inventory Management Systems.

^Plagman, B., Data Dictionary/Directory System: A Tool for Administration and Control . Auerbach Data Base Management Series, #22-01-02, 1977.

119

Plagman
The recognition in recent years that an organization ought to have a Data Base

Administration (DBA) function responsible for the coordination and control of data re- lated activities in the enterprise, was borne out of the cognizance of data as a corporate

resource. The realization, soon thereafter, that the DBA function could not effectively

operate without the automated support of a data inventory system, (i.e., a data dictionary/

directory system) is a logical progression of events. For many years, (from 1970 - 1974)

conimercial DD/DS's being generally unavailable, most users found it necessary to improvise

and develop "home-grown" systems. Such an effort would typically take nine to twelve

(9-12) months and cost from $40,000 - $100,000, depending on the sophistication of the

effort. Today, a survey of the market place (see figure 1) uncovers better than half a dozen DD/DS packages of one form or another. These packages range in cost from

$10,000 - $25,000. Applying the logic of "MAKE VS BUY" analysis (see figure 2), most

organizations considering a DD/DS are shopping and comparing the available commercial

offerings.

This paper addresses the problem of how to compare, evaluate and select a DD/DS

from amongst the available commercial offerings, to insure a "best fit" in a particular

data base environment.

The recommended approach for DD/DS package selection is to establish a selection

methodology which will minimize the subjectivity and bias of those involved in the

selection process. The steps in this methodology are outlined in figure 3 and expanded

in greater detail in the remaining sections of this portfolio.

2. DD/DS Selection Methodology

The first steps in evaluating and selecting a DD/DS package are oriented towards

planning the effort. Attention is directed towards enumerating the steps to be followed

in the selection methodology (see figure 3) and estimating time required for the com- pletion of tasks. Selection of personnel to perform these tasks should be made on the

basis of each person's contribution to the selection effort. A typical selection team

might include five persons representing the following areas within the organization.

Data Base Administration (Chairperson)

Technical Services

Applications Programming

Systems Design

Operations

With wide representation the selection team can be expected to avoid the bias of

any one particular viewpoint. For example, were Technical Services choosing a DD/DS,

the choice might be a system heavily oriented towards the technical support of the

installation's DBMS, with lesser regard for the data definition capabilities of the

package. This equilibrium of viewpoints is important to establish and is accomplished

by using the weighting mechanism described below.

In conjunction with establishing the selection methodology, its participants must

initiate an education and training program to accomplish two objectives:

(1) Make decision-making management within the EDP area aware of DD/DS

trade-offs involved in the selection, and

(2) Provide the selection team with enough information to procede with

the evaluation.

Plagman

120
The source of this education will be, for the most part, in the literature.

References are provided at the end of this paper. In addition, we recommend highly

seminars offered by independent vendors.

3. DD/DS Selection Criteria

The evaluation and selection of a DD/DS package is based upon the comparison of

relevant packages based upon a uniform set of evaluation criteria. The specification

of this uniform set of criteria is an important step in the selection process.

The uniform DE/DS selection criteria is comprised of eight (8) major selection

criteria categories (see figure 4). Each of these is segmented further to adequately

describe DD/DS capabilities.

[1.0] Data Description Facilities

[1.1] Type of Input (Keyword versus Preformatted)

[1.2] Entity Structure Definition Support

[1.3] Mandatory/Optional Definitions

[1.4] Default Functions

[1.5] Reference Definition

[1.6] Generation of DD/DS Input from Host Language Code

[2.0] Data Documentation Support

[2.1] Identification Attributes

[2.2] Source Attributes

[2.3] Type of Data Attributes (Generic classifications)

[2.4] Usage/User Attributes

[2.5] Qualification Attributes

[2.6] Relationship Attributes

[2.7] Attributes Describing System Entities

[2.8] Other Documentation Considerations (e.g., Keyword

capability, version control, etc.)

[3.0] Data Description Generation

[3.1] Generation of Host Language Data Description

[3.2] Generation of DBMS DDL [3.3] Interface Architecture (i.e., the design of interfaces)

[3.4] Completeness of Interfaces

[4.0] Security Support

[4.1] Attributes for Describing User Data Base Security

[4.2] Security Support for the DD/DS Data Base

121 Plagman
[5.0] Integrity Support

[5.1] Edit and Validation

[5.2] Audit/Derivation Functions

[5.3] Test Data Generation

[5.4] Distributed Data Base Support

[6.0] User Interfaces/Outputs

[6.1] Standard Reports

[6.2] Ad Hoc Query/Update

[6.3] On-Line Facilities (Retrieval/Update)

[7.0] Ease of Use and Resource Utilization

[7.1] Ease of Learning

[7.2] Level of Expertise Required

[7.3] Compatabil i ty with Existing Procedures

[7.4] Operational Impact

[8.0] Vendor Support

[8.1] Vendor Stability

[8.2] Commitment to Package

[8.3] Reliability and Quality of Support

[8.4] User's Group

[8.5] Documentation

3.1 Mandatory Criteria

In identifying and describing the uniform selection criteria according to the foregoing guidelines, it is necessary to identify specific criteria which will be treated as mandatory. DD/DS packages which fail to meet minimum requirements for mandatory criteria

would be eliminated from the evaluation process at this early stage. For example; under

the criteria [1.6]of Data Description Facilities, Generation of DD/DS Input from Host

Language Code, it may be deemed necessary to have a COBOL program scanner which would

generate input for the DD/DS. This type of facility may be mandatory due to anticipated major conversion activity. Thus DD/DS packages without this facility would be

eliminated from contention (e.g., LEXICON).

An integral part of the elimination of alternatives based upon mandatory criteria is

the classification of available DD/DS packages based upon their dependency on a DBMS

and/or the relative degree of control afforded to the DBA upon integration into the data

base environment. A given DD/DS package must utilize some mechanism to manage, i.e.,

organize, access and control, the DD/DS data base. This meta data base is often times

managed by a commercial DBMS, thus requiring the installation of the DBMS in order to run the DD/DS package. This can, of course, be an advantage if the meta data base and

the DBMS directories are actually one and the same. Additionally, in situations where

the organization is absolutely committed to the underlying DBMS, the fact that the

DD/DS is dependent on the DBMS would be an advantage.

Plagman 122
Nevertheless, many DD/DS packages remain independent of any particular DBMS, allowing users to be somewhat more flexible with regard to a DBMS.

Regardless of whether or not a DD/DS is dependent or independent of a DBMS, it can

still provide a high degree of active control over the data base environment. This is accomplished by providing automated interfaces for the generation of data descriptions

(see criteria 3.0 above). In doing so, the specification of all data descriptions can

be controlled through the DD/DS. Packages not providing sufficient degrees of active

control are referred to as passive DD/DS' s. An alternative name for the active controlling DD/DS, is the "integrated" DD/DS.

Figure 5 illustrates a typical classification of DD/DS packages in terms of:

Dependence versus independence

Relative active control versus passiveness.

It should be noted that in figure 5 we have assumed that a DD/DS package is active

(integrated), only if it includes a facility for generating DDL for at least one DBMS. Also, we have assumed that if a DD/DS package requires a DBMS's access methods to operate, it is classified as dependent, even if the vendor doesn't require the prior

purchase of the DBMS in question.

4. Weighting of the Selection Criteria

Having arrived at a set of uniform DD/DS selection criteria, the next important

step is to assign weights to each of the criteria. This process represents the

"tailoring" of the criteria to the particular needs of the data base environment in

question.

The mechanical process of assigning weights is similar to the calculation of a weighted average and is hypothetically illustrated in Figure 6. Notice that weights

are applied successively at each level of the criteria.

The task of deciding upon the values for the weights is difficult and understandably critical. This task is the single most important activity of the DD/DS

selection team. Experience has shown that a workable approach is to have each team

member assign a full set of weights individually and then convene as a group to negotiate differences.

The process of applying weights will thus reflect the need for particular features

of a DD/DS. For example; an installation may already be using one or more DBMS's or

a program library manager (e.g.. Librarian) and special interfaces would be advantageous.

The weights in Category Three (3) should reflect these requirements. Another installation may be using TSO for on-line programming and therefore require a DD/DS with

compatable on-line capability. The weights in Category Six (6) should reflect this

situation.

123 Plagman
5. Evaluation of DD/DS Packages

At this stage of the evaluation and selection process a uniform set of criteria

has been established and based upon mandatory criteria a specific group of DD/DS

packages have been designated for detailed analysis. The next level of analysis is for

the most part technical and is completely independent of the particular needs of or- ganization. At this point the evaluation concentrates on scoring each package against

the uniform selection criteria. Ideally, this task need not be performed by the

selection team. By assigning different individuals to do this scoring an element of

objectivity is introduced into the selection.

There are various sources of information available to develop these scores. Vendors, of course, are always ready, willing and able to participate, however one must

be extremely careful of ambiguities and errors of omission. Independent sources of

information are available in the literature (see references) or from consulting firms

actively involved in the evaluation and implementation of DD/DS packages. An advantage

to using external services, in this regard, is that time is not wasted learning

packages which will not be used.

6. Final Selection of a DD/DS

The final step in the evaluation and selection process involves the mechanics of

calculating results and arriving at a conclusion recommending the acquisition of a DD/DS package.

In this last step of calculation it will become obvious as to reasons why one DD/DS scored higher/lower than others. One of the advantages of using the weighted

evaluation technique is that specific weaknesses/strengths can be isolated and analyzed

for their effect on the total selection process. Thus, if a package lacked on-line

update capabilities its final score could be analyzed and the penalty for lacking this

feature could be isolated. Similarly, DD/DS packages can be compared as to 'their relative

scores in particular categories, further highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the

packages under consideration.

In final stages of evaluation a selection must be made. At this time it is

important to recognize that inspite of all the numbers and weights, the intent to minimize subjectivity does not eliminate the element of individual bias. All of the

scores and weights were assigned, not measured. These numbers, by their very nature,

are qualitative not quantitative measurements. Thus, in order to distinguish between

any two given packages in this selection methodology it is recommended that there be

at least a five percent (5%) differential in their scores.

In situations where the selection methodology yields two high scoring packages with

less than a five percent differential, the evaluation criteria which are more subjective

should be scrutinized. The evaluation criteria which may have caused some bias include

the last two categories;

Ease of Use and Resource Utilization

Vendor Support

The selection team should analyze and reevaluate the scores assigned in these

categories taking into account that these characteristics are very subjective.

The following are the categories that should be considered:

Plagman 124
!

Ease of Learning [7.1] - Each DD/DS package is to be evaluated for the relative

ease of users to grasp and retain the instructions for using the system. It is difficult, however, to ascertain this qualitative aspect of the DD/DS without

experience with the package. It is therefore recommended that the select team

consult with existing users of the package and rely on the experience of others.

Level of Expertise Required [7.2] - This evaluation criteria focuses on the number

of people required to support the DD/DS, both administratively and technically.

The issue cf not having experience with the package arises again. Here also this

could be solved by consulting other users. However, one must also contend with

varying complexity of the data base environment in which the DD/D$ is implemented.

Compatability with Existing Procedures [7.3] - Consideration is to be given, in

this criteria, to the ability of DD/DS to adapt to particular characteristics of

the installation's data processing environment. This might include the ability

to supplement or replace existing forms of documentation, compatability with

systems development methodologies and any unnecessary constraints the package may

impose on naming conventions or other areas of documentation. The problem with

this criteria is that it is vague in its scope. The selection team should enumerate

each effected area and create sub-headings for each one to further refine the

scoring in an attempt to achieve greater objectivity in the evaluation process.

Vendor Stability [8.1] - It is important to ascertain the ability of the vendor

to maintain itself as a going concern. The DD/DS plays an important role in the

data base environment and users want a vendor who will not fold and leave users

to fend for themselves. Obviously, there is a qualitative judgment to be made.

Nevertheless, when arriving at a score, consideration should be given the following qualitative factors;

size of the company (people)

profitability

number of years in business

Commitment to Package [8.2] - The DD/DS should be the central repository for

data description and an important control mechanism for the DBA. Thus the DD/DS

must be closely coordinated with other software components (e.g., DBMS and TP)

of the environment and should be enhanced to periodically stay current with an advancing technology. This requires a vendor committed to supporting a Research

and Development activity. This assessment must be made on the basis of past

history and future capability.

Reliability and Quality of Support [8.3] - The vendor of the DD/DS software

package must be capable of providing reliable support for the user. Personnel

assigned should be knowledgeable and capable of solving user problems. The

assessment of this capability will be largely subjective and must be based upon

past history and the experience of other users.

User's Group [8.4] - The majority if not all of the major DD/DS vendors organize

conferences and meetings for their users.

Documentation [8.5] - The importance of good documentation can not be over- emphasized for the DD/DS package. Generally, the longer the package has been

commercially available, the better the documentation.

)

125 Plagman
7. Conclusion

Many organizations have recently recognized the need for automated support of the

Data Base Administration function. Much of this support has materialized in the form

of commercial software packages, generally referred to as Data Dictionary/Directory

Systems. The process of evaluating and selecting a DD/DS from amongst these systems

must be carried out carefully and with maximum objectivity. The methodology set forth

in this paper, based upon a uniform DD/DS selection criteria, provides the basis for

such an evaluation and selection procedure.

8. Bibliography

EDP Analyzer , November, 1974.

Lefkowitz, Henry C., Data Dictionary/Directory Systems , QED Information Sciences,

February, 1977, $75.00.

Plagman, B., Altshuler, G., A Data Dictionary/Directory System Within the Context of

an ICDB , AFIPS Conference Proceedings, Vol. 41, 1972.

Technical Profile of Seven Data Element Dictionary/Directory Systems , NBS Special

Publication 500-3, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,

February, 1977.

Uhrowczik, Data Dictionary/Directory Systems , IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1973.

126
FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Selected Commercially Available DD/DS Packages

DD./DS Make or Buy Decision

DD/DS Selection Methodology

Uniform DD/DS Selection Criteria - Major Categories

DD/DS Package Classification

Assigning Weights to Levels of Criteria

127 Plagman
DD/DS PACKAGE VENDOR

LEXICON Arthur Anderson & Co. 69 W. Washington St. Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 346-6262

TOTAL DATA DICTIONARY Cincom Systems, Inc. 2300 Montana Avenue

Cincinnati , OH 4521

1

(513) 662-2300

INTEGRATED DATA DICTIONARY Cull inane Corp.

20 William Street

Wellesley, MA 02181

(617) 237-6601

DB/DC DICTIONARY IBM Corp.

1133 Westchester Avenue

White Plains, NY 10604

(914) 696-1900

CONTROL 2000 MRI Systems Corp.

12675 Research Blvd.

Austin, TX 78759

DATAMANAGER MSP, Inc. 594 Marrett Road

Lexington, MA 02173

(617) 861-6130

DATA CATALOGUE Synergetics Corp.

One DeAngelo Drive

Bedford,' MA 01730

(617.) 275-0250

UCC TEN University Computing Co 8303 Elmbrook St. Dallas, TX 75247

(214) 688-7100

PRIDE/LOGIK M. Bryce Assoc.

1248 Springfield Pike

Cincinnati, OH 45215

(513) 761-8400

FIGURE 1. Selected Commercially Available DD/DS Packages

Plagman 128
FIGURE 2. DD/DS Make or Buy Decision

129 Plagman
1.

ESTABLISH SELECTION METHODOLOGY

» ENUMERATE STEPS

@ SELECT EVALUATION TEAM

6 TRAINING & EDUCATION

2. IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE SELECTION CRITERIA

@ ENUMERATE CRITERIA

6 DESCRIBE CRITERIA

e CLASSIFY CRITERIA: MANDATORY/DESIRABLE,

ELIMINATING PACKAGES FAILING MANDATORY CRITERIA

3. ASSIGN WEIGHTS TO SELECTION CRITERIA

4. EVALUATE PACKAGES FOR EACH SELECTION CRITERIA

5. CALCULATE SCORES & SELECT DD/DS PACKAGE

FIGURE 3. DD/DS Selection Methodology

Plagman 130
1. DATA DESCRIPTION FACILITIES

THIS CATEGORY INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF ENTITY DESCRIPTIONS

ALLOWED, TYPES OF DATA STRUCTURES SUPPORTED, RANGE OF OPTIONS

LEFT TO USER DISCRETION, AND HOST LANGUAGE SUPPORTED.

2. DATA DOCUMENTATION SUPPORT

THIS CATEGORY COVERS THE RANGE OF ATTRIBUTES PROVIDED TO

DESCRIBE DD/DS ENTITIES, AND THE EASE OF EXTRACTING DOCUMENTATION INFORMATION.

3. DATA DEFINITION GENERATION (AUTOMATED)

A SPECIAL CATEGORY IS ALLOCATED TO EVALUATE THE ABILITY OF

THE DD/DS TO GENERATE DATA DEFINITIONS FOR VARIOUS AUTOMATED

USES, (e.g., DBMS, HOST LANGUAGE COMPILER, ETC.)

4. SECURITY SUPPORT

SECURITY IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CATEGORY, EVALUATED FROM THE

VIEWPOINT OF THE ABILITY TO DESCRIBE USER DATA BASE SECURITY,

AND FACILITIES TO PROJECT THE DD/DS, DATA BASE.

5. INTEGRITY SUPPORT

THIS CATEGORY ADDRESSES THE ABILITY OF THE DD/DS TO SUPPORT,

WITH SPECIFIC FACILITIES, THE DATA BASE ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DATA INTEGRITY.

FIGURE 4. Uniform DD/DS Selection Criteria - Major Categories

131 Plagman
6. USER INTERFACES/OUTPUTS

CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN IN THIS CATEGORY TO THE

QUALITY AND COMPLETENESS OF STANDARD REPORTS, PROVISIONS

FOR AD HOC REQUESTS AND ON-LINE FACILITIES OF THE DD/DS.

7. EASE OF USE & RESOURCES UTILIZATION

A SEPARATE CATEGORY IS DEVOTED TO THE EASE OF USE OF THE

DD/DS BOTH FROM A PERSONNEL AND AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT.

8. VENDOR SUPPORT

ALL AREAS OF VENDOR SUPPORT ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS CATEGORY.

FIGURE 4. (contd)

Plagman 132
DD/DS

TYPES

INDEPENDENT

SYSTEMS

DEPENDENT

SYSTEMS

PASSIVE

SYSTEMS

LOGIK (PRIDE) DBD

EASTERN AIRLINES

INTEGRATED

SYSTEMS

LEXICON

DATA CATALOGUE 2

DATAMANAGER

INTEGRATED DD

DB/DC DICTIONARY

UCC-10

TOTAL DICTIONARY

CONTROL 2000

PASSIVE

INTEGRATED

-

INDEPENDENT -

DEPENDENT -

NO DBMS INTERFACES

DBMS DDL GENERATION (AT LEAST)

NOT DEPENDENT ON A DBMS FOR DATA

BASE MANAGEMENT

DEPENDENT ON A DBMS FOR DATA BASE

MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 5. DD/DS Package Classification

133 Plagman
CRITERIA

LU

ICD

\

1

1r\1

1 £

|

o o o o o

l ^

o o cm o

a

\ ^| p

O CO LO UT) in

1]

CO CM

in *3"

lb

42 58 62 38

lr

32 68

!

5 : «—

1

1LO

COo «»—

V

LT) CO CD 4- >> o •r— O -4-> \ 4~>

•fo •i

to o +-> in

CD CO Z3 V .» 1 c to -m s: O o UJ CD 3 CO CD 4-> O

1

JD Q CO S- 4-> E o

cc •i

o c <u <=c o t- c +-> CL O 4-> Q_ 4-> *i

c Q. CD CO i

o_ 4-> CD CD Z3 >i fl3 ZD C -a o ~o co "O r— CO c

CO CD fO C -M S~ <T3 \ o i

>,-0 4- CD S- O JD no *r- O

>- -M D S- CL O +-> 3 O -D 4-> t— *r- r— CD CD CL •r- CO 1— ra O +-> —

<

O 4-> ~a cl C- in CD Q C c

QZ =3 C C C ZJ 3 ro Z3 o

ZD CJ —< —

«

»—1 CO U D_ Lu CD

CD CD CD r— CM

LxJ CO CO CO CM r— r- »— CM — r- — CM CM CM CM CM

*3- *3- *a- «=r

FIGURE 6. Assigning Weights to Levels of Criteria

Plagman

134

Copyright

1975

DBD

Systems,

Inc.
Some History of Traditional

Trade Documents

Robert J. Porter

Eastman Kodak Company

Rochester, New York

Most documents and procedures used in modern domestic and international

trade date back hundreds and thousands of years. Trade and commerce

have prospered and increased despite increasing difficulties. The

development of CARDIS (Cargo Data Interchange Systems) standards with

direct aim on timely electronic interchange is of enormous importance

today.

Key words: Trade documents; trade data; bill of lading; general average;

inventory records; commercial invoice; Shipper's Export Declaration;

drafts; letters of credit; data; computerized international documentation

system; CARDIS.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

It is indeed a pleasure to be here to see first hand, and for me the

first time, the facilities and operations of this prestigious and

effective organization.

The greatest kick I get out of this occasion, though, is to realize that

after many thousands of years we are on the verge of establishing and

publishing world standards for the exchange and interchange of trade

data.

My first and foremost job here could be very easy. Mrs. McEwen and my

good friend and NCITD colleague, George Begnal asked me to present the

NCITD slide-tape show: "Your Link to Trade Profits". As you will see, this takes about sixteen minutes of "no work".

In these few minutes, then, I am going to remind you of the origins of some of the traditional documents which men have used with little change

to move goods domestically and internationally since the dawn of human

history. Please keep in mind that these ideas and documents were devised

for animal caravans and primitive short voyages across rivers , lakes and

inland seas when five- ton vessels were considered enormous.

At the same time, though, please keep in mind that our ancestors were as smart or smarter than we are, and while the documents and systems I am about to describe are ancient and have developed like Topsy -- with them

one can ship anything from anyplace to anywhere, can protect his interest

in the cargo, and can be paid for it. I keep reminding myself that any new system must be at least that good.

135 Porter
Perhaps the oldest commercial document -- no one knows its origins —

was the Bill of Lading or Waybill. Besides being a record of carriage,

it is also a contract of carriage, one of the title instruments, and,

from the far off past, the strongest evidence of the liability and

limits of liability of the carrier. This accounts for the fine print

and the signatures. In a traditional, but modern, international sale

today it is not uncommon to need three or four bills of lading for a single transaction — each requiring different classifications of the same goods and each probably denoting different limits of liability and

other terms.

To some people it may be a slight surprise to learn that something now

considered by most to be included in marine insurance, "General Average"

terms are also so old that the origin is really not known.

In the very earliest development of water trade, cargo owners often

physically accompanied their goods on the voyage.

Before some genius thought of "General Average", many vessels sank with

all goods and hands because no merchants would allow his cargo to be

jettisoned by the captain in order to try to save the vessel and people

in heavy seas.

The terms of General Average are very simple — to ancient people. The

captain owned and risked his vessel while each merchant owned and risked

his cargo. Under the terms of general average, in the event of loss or damage due to a captains' need to react to natural force, each party

shares to reimburse the loser or losers -- including the captain.

Inventory records and some form of commercial invoice are so shrouded in

history that we don't know how early they appeared.

We do know that about 2,500 years ago kings, princes, and others collected

"taxes" on exports and imports — and sometimes tried to control them as well — leading to what we know as the Shipper's Export Declarations,

various kinds of export licenses, and, in some countries, import licenses.

Demand and documentary drafts were early developments some two thousand

years ago — with letters of credit following right along.

Very early attempts were made by ruling people, some successful and some

not, to collect data as well as "taxes". This led to the "classification"

of goods and various "Customs" operations.

Right now the average U.S. Exporter deals with the following "historic"

documents and more.

1. Commercial Invoice

2 . Packing List

3 . Export License

4. Inland Bill of Lading

5. Shipper's Export Declaration

Porter 136
6. Certificate of Origin

7. Bank Draft - possibly letter of credit

8. Delivery Order

9. Dock Receipt

10. Ocean Bill of Lading - Airway Bill

11. Consular Invoice - often with fees

12. Forwarder's Bill of Charges

No mention has been made of all the documents behind the exporter, such

as records of acquisition, manufacture, inventory, packing, sales analysis,

accounts receivable, etc. And need it be said that the goods in a single shipment may have to be listed, described, or classified in six

or more different ways? Also, of course many of the documents must be

assembled and attached to other documents -- with linguistic translations

sometimes required.

Despite all I've said, domestic and international trade have prospered

and grown with demand. And I, for one, working for a forward-looking

company was instrumental in developing an automatic computerized international

documentation system of amazing capability, which has lasted over 15

years.

Fortunately it is now being redesigned by others to be even better in

every way — in part, at least, due to the recognition and use of CARDIS

standards about which you will hear from Bob Cavanaugh after you see the

show.

137

Porter

Data Resource Management

Daniel B. Schneider

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

I

I "Data Resource Management" has become a computer industry buzz-word

referring to the management of data outside the confines of specific hardware

and software.

) Task Group 17 began to focus upon this term when it became clear that

data element directories are merely tools with which technicians and managers

might fashion some end result, and that the end result to be fashioned would

dictate the characteristics of the tools. We had a choice: either focus

upon the tools in all their myriad sizes, shapes and possible uses; or pick

a specific end result and discuss the directory as a tool for fashioning it.

We chose the latter.

The end result to which we oriented was "data resource management". We

selected it for two reasons - it seemed the broadest, most comprehensive

purpose for developing directories, and it suited the personal interests of

the active participants in our sub-task group.

As soon as we commenced work we realized that while the term "data

resource management" has long been bandied about by many people of stature

in data processing, no clear and complete definition of the term had yet been

put forward.

So we set for ourselves four tasks, as follows:

(1) Develop a concept of data resource management.

(2) Show how data resource management relates to other forms of management, e.g. systems management and data processing management.

(3) Develop a concept of a program for the realization of data

resource management.

(4) Show how data resource directories can be developed and used

within programs for data resource management.

Our results are being documented in two publications, which should be

printed sometime in calendar year 1978. An "executive guide" brief will

discuss the reasons for having data resource management, and will tell top

managers what they must do if they want to launch a data resource management

program in their organizations.

A FIPS Publication Guidelines book will tell senior technicians,

supervisors and middle managers just what they should do - step-by-step - if and when they are directed to implement a data resource management

program. It will contain, as one of its four parts, a discussion of data

resource directories prepared by our sister sub-task group, 17. A.

139

Schneider
Data as a Resource

A threshold problem we felt compelled to address was whether data is

really a resource, in the conventional sense of "resource". Although data

shares with manpower, money, machinery and material the basic attributes of

economic cost and usefulness to production, it differs from them all in that

it is not subject to normal rules and procedures for allocation once it has

been acquired.

Rather than assert that data is a resource, we elected simply to state

it as a premise. Given that premise, we then examined the other established

"resources", identified the common traits in their management, and applied

these traits to the resource called data.

Thus we conceive the management of the data resource to be parallel to

the management of the manpower, money, machinery and material resources. It

is a staff activity, apart from such support services as records operations

or data processing. Its operating characteristics are management policy,

review and control procedures, and record-keeping. The record-keeping refers,

of course, to records about the data resource. This is where the data

resource directory comes into the picture.

Finally, we take cognizance of the need for data cost accounting, and

the recommendations for this by the Commission on Federal Paperwork. Nevertheless, we feel that a program for data resource management is not in the

bailiwick of the accountants, but that such a program may facilitate data

cost accounting if and when top management decides to pursue that objective.

Our view of data resource management is unique. No published literature

supports it. In fact, in those cases where the phrase "data resource management" appears in printed articles, it does so in contexts very different from

ours

.

But our view makes sense in light of our premise and the parallels to

other resources. The benefits we hold out are real, though we candidly admit

the difficulty in forecasting and measuring them. We feel that we are uttering the first words about something that is important and that will last. It

remains to those who follow us to refine our concepts in light of their

experience

.
The Need for Standards in the Health Care Field and

A Sampling of Current Applications

Sheila M. Smythe

Executive Vice President

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York

This particular panel discussion is, indeed, timely. If your hometown

newspapers have carried, as mine has, the announcement of HEW recommended

national health planning guidelines, you found them replete with references

to resource standards, specifically intended to provide a basis for the

identification of inefficient use of scarce resources within the health

sector

.

In summary, these Federal government recommendations deal primarily

with maximum hospital bed population ratios; obstetric, pediatric and

neonatal intensive care service needs, open-heart surgery, cardiac catherization units, radiation therapy and CAT scanner distribution, and end-state

renal treatment centers. The goals of such recommendations are worthy -- the elimination of some 100,000 excess hospital beds over the next seven

years, the consolidation of expensive equipment, and the regionalization of

sophisticated technological resources, both human and machine. These proposed

standards are, however, limited to general hospitals and do not include

federal government hospitals, nursing homes, psychiatric facilities long term

or chronic care institutions. These standards are reported to be the first

of a series dealing with both the quantity and the quality of health care.

Let us pause for a moment and look at some of the meanings given to the

word "standard" by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

Something established by custom or general consent as a model.

Something that is well established by usage or widely recognized

as acceptable.

Something set up or established as a rule for the measure of

quantity, weight, extent, value or quality.

The basis of value.

A rallying point.

Certainly, within the halls of NBS or within ANSI this tends to be a broader

range of meanings than is typically applied all at once to a specific area

of application. But it is part of the problem in health, for one must, of

necessity, cope with a less tagible entity. Health is neither totally

predictable, nor is it a necessarily exact science or art toward which

precision can always be directed effectively. Part of the problem is also

the solution -- human beings. Another part is the knee jerk reaction to

legislative mandate.

Disease does not always proceed in accordance with the rules; neither

does our willingness to care for our own personal health.

Let's go back to that middle definition of "standard" -- something set

up or established as a rule for the measure of quantity, extent, value or quality. What we see this week is an effort to address through the side

doors of quantity and extent, the front door issues of value and quality;

for the simple reason that quantity and extent are more easily measured.

141 Smythe
The problem of how many services, of what kind, by whom, for whom, when,

and how are less conducive to simple mathematical formulae, computerization

and orderly information interchange. But, just as technology has advanced

in this decade, so must the discipline of the human mind be forced, coerced,

charmed or led to grapple with the less manageable. The right environment is

a crucial factor in this problem solving. Certainly, the crisis aspect of

that environment is clearly with us -- but the atmosphere and conduit for

solutions is less defined. I am not trying to say that standards are the

solutions, but greater emphasis by the health and technological and pro fes

sional leadership in standards would help. For in front of the global

solutions must come action plans and maps for how to do it, and it is here

that well developed standards can play a key role.

All of us involved in standards know that the resolutions, do not come overnight. The health care field needs, to my mind, an umbrella in the

voluntary sector whereby public and private experts can come together to

develop the standards or, more importantly, serve as a receptacle for the

labors of others and channel the results to the various parties involved.

We are too fragmented at present. This is where ANSI and NBS can play an important role lending the forum, dignity and respect for quality endeavors

for which they have become increasingly recognized. This fits in quite

appropriately with the last definition of the word "standard" that I gave

you -- a rallying point . So much for the scene setter.

Our first panelist will address for us the enormous strides that have

been taken in a health application field that truly represents life or death to each of us -- human blood .

Dr. Eric Brodheim is head of the Operations Research Laboratory at

Lindsley Kimball Research Institute of the New York Blood Center.

Since 1974 he has been Chairman of the American Blood Commission

Committee for Commonality in Blood Banking Automation. This Committee has

developed and field tested a uniform labelling system for all blood products

that incorporates machine- readable optial bar codes to facilitate a uniform

and economical approach to automation by blood banks of all sizes while

retaining compatibility with non- automated operations. Since 1975 he has

been Chairman of an American Blood Commission Task Force charged with

creating a national blood data center to be the focus of information and

professional expertise relating to blood and blood policy issues. It was

his committee that created the recently published American Blood Commission

Report -- Toward a National Blood Data Center . He will speak to us on the

Identification and Standardization of Blood Products

.

Our second speaker, Gerald J. Duffy, is a native Chicagoan and since

1971 has been Vice President of Data Processing and Telecommunications

Services ^or the Blue Cross Association in Chicago. He has also served for

several years on a legislative commission initiated by the House of

Representatives in the State of Illinois to study the question of computer

research sharing between state agencies, universities, other educational

institutions and municipal governments. Mr. Duffy will hopscotch over a variety of interest areas with which he has, will or might be involved.

Our third speaker, Ward C. Duel, is registered sanitarian and public

health expert. Currently he is Assistant Director for Environmental Public

and Occupational Health at the American Medical Association. Significantly,

he is also a member of the one area of health with which ANSI is involved

at the Board level, namely, the Medical Devices Standards Management Board .

Mr. Duel will speak to us about various aspects of his work with the

FDA and ANSI.

Smythe 142
APPENDIX A

Third National Symposium on the

Management of Data Elements in Information Processing

Symposium Committee

Mrs. Hazel E. McEwen

PROGRAM CHAIRPERSON

National Bureau of Standards, Technology

Bldg., Room B261, Wash., D.C. 20234

(301)921-3157

Mr. Walter Schlenker

PROGRAM CO-CHAIRPERSON

General Electric Company

1285 Boston Avenue, Bridgeport,

Conn. 06880 (203)334-1012 Ext. 1498

Mr. Harry S. White, Jr. National Bureau of Standards, Technology

Bldg., Room B261, Wash., D.C. 20234

(301)921-3157

Session Chairpersons

Mr. Aaron Hochman Office of Secretary of Defense, DoD

LOGDESMO - Room 7S-69, 200 Stovall

Street, Hoffman Bldg. #2, Alexandria,

Va. 22332 (703)325-9324

Mr. Charles J. Kenny U.S. Civil Service Commission

Bureau of Manpower Information Systems

1900 E Street, N.W. - Room 6439

Wash., D.C. 20415 (202)254-8885

Mr. William H. Kenworthey, Jr. Office of the Secretary of Defense

Room 2A256, The Pentagon, Wash., D.C.

20331 (202)688-7608

Mr. Walter Schlenker General Electric Company

1285 Boston Avenue, Bridgeport,

Conn. 06880 (203)334-1012 Ext. 1498

Ms. Nevaire Serra j ian Department of Energy, Office of the

Asst. Secretary for Environment, E-201,

Wash., D.C. 20545 (301)353-4658

Miss Sheila M. Smythe Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Greater New

York, 622 Third Avenue, New York,

New York 10017 (212)490-5421

143 Appendix A
Presenters and Authors of Papers

Mr. Ted M. Albert Department of Energy, Office of the

Asst. Secretary for Environment, G-107

Wash., D.C. 20S45 (301)353-3311

Dr. Craig Black 4400 Forbes Avenue, Carnegie Museum of

Natural History, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15213 (412)662-3243

Eric Brodheim, Sc.D Community Blood Council, 310 East

67th Str., New York, New York 10021

(212) 794-3258

Mr. Paul Brown U.S. Civil Service Commission - BMIS

1900 E Str., N.W., Room 6457, Wash.,

D.C. 20415 (202)632-4251

Mr. Robert J. Cavanaugh General Electric Company, International

Sales Division, 570 Lexington Avenue,

New York, New York 10022 (212)750-3737

Ward Duel , MPh American Medical Association, 535 North

Dearborn Str., Chicago. Illinois 60610

(312)751-6532

Mr. Gerald J. Duffy Blue Cross Association of Chicago,

840 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago,

Illinois 60611 (312)440-6258

Peter J, Finnerty, Esq. Sea-Land Services, Inc., P.0. Box 900,

Edison, New Jersey 08817 (201)494-2500

Dr. T. Gary Gautier National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution, Wash., D.C.

20560 (202)381-6360 or 5252

Mr. Stephen M. Gershenson Commission on Federal Paperwork

1111 20th Str., Wash., D.C. 20582

(202)653-5414

Mr. Edward A. Guilbert Transportation Data Coordinating

Committee, 1101 17th Str., N.W.

Suite 309, Wash., D.C. 20036

(202)293-5514

Mr. Clarence Hankerson Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wash.,

D.C. 20590 (202)426-8602

Appendix A 144
Mr. Eugene Hemley

Mr. Forest W. Horton,

Mr. Richard Kline, Jr

Mr. Robert J. Porter

Mr. Daniel Schneider

Mr. Stanwyn G. Shetler

Miss Sheila M. Smythe

National Committee on International

Trade Documentation, 30 East 42nd

Street, Suite 1406, New York, New

York 10017 (212)687-6261

Jr. Commission on Federal Paperwork

1111 20th Street, N.W. Wash., D.C.

20582 (202)653-5414

Federal Energy Administration, Energy

Systems - Room 7420, 12th § Pennsylvania Avenue, Wash., D.C. 20461

(202)566-9811

Eastman Kodak Company, Distribution

Center, Rochester, New York 14650

(716)458-1000, Ext. 85625

U.S. Department of Justice

5843 Potomac Avenue, N.W., Wash.,

D.C. 20016 (202)376-8770

Department of Botany, NHB #166

Smithsonian Institution, Wash., D.C.

20560 (202)381-5801

Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Greater New

York, 622 Third Avenue, New York, New

York 10017 (212)490-5421

145 Appendix
MU
FUTURE DATA ELEMENT MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES

TO: Harry S„ White, Jr. Associate Director for ADP Standards

Institute for Computer Sciences and

Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

FROM: (name, address, and telephone number)

Please add my name to your mailing list for announcements and information

relating to future data element management conferences.

I wish to present a paper on the following subject:

I would like to participate on a panel or in an open forum on the following

subject(s):

I suggest the following subjects or subject areas for consideration at the

future conferences:

Other recommendations:

1

NBS-1 14A (REV. 1 (-77)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 78-1446

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Management of Data Elements in Information

Processing (Proceedings of the Third National

Symposium, 1977 September 28-30)

5. Publication Date 1978 April

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) Various

Editor

:

8 . Performing Organ. Report No. Hazel E. McEwen

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards and the American

National Standards Institute Committee X3L8

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) Accelerated technological advances in computers and communications

make possible the integration of data systems and the exchange of data

among them on an expanding scale. However, the full effect of these

advances cannot be realized unless the need for uniform understanding

of the common information (data elements) and their expression in data

systems is recognized and a means provided to effectively manage this

information. The increasing interrelationships among data systems of

Federal, State and local governments, and with industry and the public

add emphasis and dimension to the need for the improved management of

data in information processing.

These Proceedings are for the Third National Symposium on the

Management of Data Elements in Information Processing held at the

National Bureau of Standards on 1977 September 28-30. In these

Proceedings, 27 speakers discuss data element management in the field

of health care, energy, paperwork management, data dictionary/

directories, data resource management, trade data standards and

museum data.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) American National Standards; American National

Standards Institute; data; data base systems; data elements; data

management; data processing; Federal Information Processing Standards;

information interchange; information processing; information systems.

18. AVAILABILITY f

X

1 Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

j

I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office

' Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-00

3

| X | Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES.

155

22. Price

$ 8.00

USCOMM-DC 66033-P78 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-261-238/67

!