~~~~ 

~ 

REPORT TO 

THE PRESIDENT Eca4ao 

AND 

CONGRESS 

REQUIRED BY 

THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT OF 1986 

ON 

BARRIERS TO THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF 

FEDERAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE 

AND 

FEASIBILITY AND COST OF COMPILING 

AN INVENTORY OF FEDERALLY FUNDED 

TRAINING SOFTWARE 

ROBERT ORTNER. UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS 

BARRY BERINGER. ASSOCIATE 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS 

D. BRUCE MERRIFIELD. ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR PRODUCTIVITY. 

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

JOSEPH CAPONIO. DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION 

SERVICE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In enacting the Federal Technology Transfer Act (P.L. 99-582) 

the secretary of Commerce is directed to submit a report to 

Congress regarding: 

(A) any copyright provisions or other types of barriers 

which tend to restrict or limit the transfer of 

federally funded computer software to the private sector 

and to state and local governments. and agencies of such 

state and local governments: and 

(B) the feasibility and cost for compiling and maintaining a 

current and comprehensive inventory of all Federally funded training software. 

The Department has studied both questions and its findings are 

summarized as follows: 

The main thrust of the Federal Technology Transfer Act is to 

encourage greater applications in the private sector of 

Federally funded research and development. The interest of the 

Administration and Congress to increase uses of Federally 

supported computer sof tware--both for training and commercial 

applications--is an important aspect of increasing this 

cooperation to boost U.S. competitiveness. .. 

This report identifies signiticant barriers preventing greater 

commercialization of this software. President Reagan in 

Executive Order 12591 instructed "the heads of each Executive 

department and agency shall. within overall funding allocations 

and to the extent permitted by law ... cooperate. under policy 

guidance provided by the Off ice of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP). with the heads of other affected departments and 

agencies in the development of a uniform policy permitting Federal contractors to retain rights to software. engineering 

drawings. and other technical data generated by Federal grants 

and contracts. in exchange for royalty-free use by or on behalf 

of the government." 

The President is using the highly successful precedent. established under P.L. 96-517 for the commercialization of 

Federally supported patentable technology to encourage greater 

development of software. The principle. is that by allowing 

contractors and grantees to own and develop discoveries they 

make a much greater number of new products. jobs. and even 

create new businesses greatly benef itting the U.S. economy. When discoveries are taken away from their creators by. the 

Government. the chances of subsequent development and 

application fall substantially. 
The success of this policy for patentable technology is 

summarized in the April 1987 report of the General Accounting 

Office to Congress "Patent Policy: Recent Changes in Federal 

Law Considered Beneficial." 

The policy being prepared by OFPP should go a long way toward 

encouraging greater economic benefits to the country by 

allowing private sector development of software created by 

contractors and grantees. However, current legal barriers 

preventing Federal employees from obtaining copyrights greatly 

discourage the U.S. development of their software since no 

exclusivity can be obtained to justify this investment. Thus, 

while domestic development can be frustrated, these discoveries 

are freely available to our foreign competitors. 

ii 
Honorable George Bush 

President of the Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. President: 

t."4,. OF co ,....,,. .. .., {J~ ~ \ 

: l!J··· · _~_ , r ~ THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE _ ~ , Washington, D.C. 20230 

-;.~ -, ~$:.> 

o sr•Tes of ,._<Ii 

M/W 3 I 1988 

Enclosed for your review is a report pursuant to the 

requirements of Public Law 99-582. The Federal Technology 

Transfer Act of 1986. The report is in two parts. Part A 

identifies copyright provisions or other types of barriers 

which limit the commercialization of Federally- developed 

computer software. and Part B addresses the feasibility and 

cost of compiling and maintaining a current and comprehensive 

inventory of all Federally-funded training software. 

The Federal Technology Transfer Act encourages greater 

applications in the private sector of Federally-funded research 

and development. Specifically. it will allow private sector 

development of software created by contractors and grantees. 

This fall. our Office of Federal Technology Management will be 

submitting a report on the implementation of the Act. I look 

forward to working with your office on this issue. 

Sincerely. 

Secretary of Commerce 

Enclosures 
A. Barriers To Commercializing Federally Supported Computer 

Software 

In 1986 the Federal Technology Transfer Act was approved which 

became Public Law 99-502. This landmark legislation paves the 

way for commercializing the results of research performed at 

federal laboratories. It does so by establishing incentives for 

these laboratories to enter into cooperative research and 

development agreements with the private sector, state and local 

governments, and academic institutions. 

The new law's principal focus was on patent rights as an 

incentive for commercializing inventions resulting from these 

public-private sector coll~borative arrangements~ A number of 

related statutes aimed at commercializing the results of research 

performed by government contractors also focused on the 

disposition of patent rights as an appropriate incentive. 

However, recognizing the economic value of computer software, 

which is protected by trade secret and copyright law rather than 

by patents, the new Act also directed the Department of Commerce 

to advise Congress and the President as to whether federal laws 

or policies unnecessarily impede the transfer to the private 

sector of federally funded computer software. 

The Department, in the course of preparing this report, has found 

that if effectively implemented, the President's-Executive Order 

12591 should greatly stimulate development of software developed 
under federal grants and contracts. However, the current legal 

prohibition preventing government employees from receiving 

copyrights for works they create constitutes a significant 

barrier, which only a change in the law can overcome. This 

barrier prevents the U.S. taxpayer from receiving the full 

benefit of the $55 billion that the government spends on research 

and development each year. 

The new law recognized that research performed at federal 

laboratories for federal program purposes in such areas as 

agriculture, medicine, space, defense, industrial standards, 

etc., is often on the frontiers of scientific and technological 

knowledge. If properly managed, this research can have enormous 

commercial potential. Accordingly, the Federal Technology 

Transfer Act au~horized the laboratories to agree in advance to 

convey to a collaborating party exclusive licenses to any 

inventions made by a federally-employed inventor resulting from 

the collaboration and to pay that inventor a specified percentage 

of the resulting royalties. 

In doing so, the Federal Technology Transfer Act reflected the 

principles that (a) without the ability to reward inventors, new 

scientific discoveries might go unreported; (b) the ability to 

obtain broad ownership rights enables one to exclude imitators 

who do not have comparable research and development costs to 

recoup and is, therefore, a powerful incentive ·to~undertake the 

risks inherent in commercializing a new invention; and (c) those 

2 
who are closest to the new technology are the ones who are 

generally best able to appreciate its possibilities and to manage 

it wisely. 

These principles were recognized earlier as well l~ such 

important laws as the Bayh-Dole University and Small Business 

Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-517, as amended), which 

gave universities and small businesses ownership rights to 

inventions made with federal funding1 the 1984 Amendments which 

eased certain restrictions and also gave many government owned, 

contractor operated laboratories rights to inventions they 

develop with federal funding; as well as President Reagan's 

Memorandum of February 18, 1983 directing agencies, to the extent 

consistent with law, to extend this ownership principle to all 

funding agreement recipients, regardless of size. 

These various actions have had perceptibly beneficial results, as 

reported recently by the General Accounting Office. For example, 

university administrators have reported that the ability of 

universities to own federally financed inventions has encouraged 

business sponsorship of their research and has reduced 

universities' administrative costs. Small businesses have 

reported that the title rights provisions have encouraged small 

businesses to bid on government contracts and to participate in 

the Government's Small Business Innovation Research· (SBIR) 

program. 

3 
However, none of these laws applied to computer software 

developed by contractors with federal funding or by federal 

employees at federal laboratories. Yet Congress has not been the 

only institution to express concern as to whether federal laws 

and policies effectively promote the commercialization of 

federally funded software. In April, 1987 the President issued 

Executive Order 12591 which directed all agencies to: 

" ••• cooperate, under policy guidance provided by the Office 

of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) , with the heads of 

other affected departments and agencies in the development 

of a uniform policy permitting federal contractors to retain 

rights to software, engineering drawings, and other 

technical data generated by federal grants and contracts, in 

exchange for royalty-free use by or on benalf of the 

government." 

Consistent with this mandate, and in response to complaints from 

the business sector that the government claimed more rights to 

data and software than it needed and failed to protect adequately 

that which it did acquire, OFPP, in December, 1987, presented to 

the Vice President's Task Force on Regulatory Review a suggested 

policy to guide agencies in asserting rights to privately funded 

and publicly funded technical data and computer software. 

With respect to federally fundea·aata and software, the policy 

parallels that which now exists for federal1¥_funded inventions: 

4 
the government will have royalty-free use and the contractor will 

otherwise be permitted to retain exclusive commercial rights. 

OFPP's approach is an excellent first start. Nevertheless, while 

it is a generally thorough response to the Executive Order, both 

the order and the proposed policy are only a partial response to 

the problem of commercializing federally funded computer 

software. 

Although we have developed parallel policies to promote the 

commercialization of federally funded, contractor developed 

inventions and software, we do not have a comparable policy for 

rewarding scientists at federal laboratories fo~_their 

devel0pment of commercially valuable computer software programs. 

Nor can we give federal laboratory managers the same flexibility 

in managing copyrightable works, such as software, emerging from 

collaborative research and development arrangements that we give 

them in managing inventions. 

Frustration over their inability to commercialize valuable 

software made in their facilities is one of the top.concerns in 

our federal laboratories, according to a new report by the 

General Accounting Office. This repor~, Technology ~~: 

Constraints Perceived .Qy Federal taboratoty ~ Agency Official~ 

confirms problems the Department of Commerce is hearing from the 

federal laboratories. 

5 
As one Public Health Scientist put it: 

"Many information technology advances, developments, 

discoveries, etc., involve computer programs as well as 

hardware devices. Many developments funded and/or developed 

by federal laboratories could and should benefit the public 

health. Often this can happen only if the software products 

and/or hardware systems are transferred into commercially 

marketed products which can be represented by sales and 

service staff in a field organization. Recent legislation 

effectively encourages this transfer for patentable hardware 

but does not encompass or even permit an analogous process 

for computer software programs and systems ••• 

"In essence, P.L. 99-502 contains provisions through 

which remuneration to federal employees for .. their 

contributions is made possible through the payment of 

royalties based on the assignment or licensing of patents. 

However, P.L. 99-502 does not extend the same royalty 

provisions to copyright holders of software products as to 

those afforded to patent holders of inventions. Yet, the 

creation, dissemination and use of innovative computer 

software - in this, the "computer age" - holds every bit as 

much promise for enhancing the Nation's health, welfare and 

international competitiveness." 

The problem in large measure stems from the government's 

inability under copyright law (17 u.s.c. 105) to-have copyright 

protection in any "work of the United States Government," 

6 
although it can receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by 

assignment or bequest. 

The Department of Commerce chairs an Interagency Committee on 

Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer. This group was formed by 

Secretary Baldrige to help the agencies implement the Federal 

Technology Transfer Act and the President's Executive Order. In 

the course of greater cooperation with U.S. industry, many 

agencies are already reporting that the inability of their 

employees to have copyright protection for valuable computer 

software is limiting the success of their efforts. Companies are 

rightly afraid that if Federal employees create software with 

their support it will fall into the public domain. Thus, foreign 

competitors could obtain for nothing important discoveries 

largely funded oy our private sector. 

This prohibition against protecting valuable federal software 

programs can also be a serious impediment to the Administration's 

efforts to ensure that u.s.-Foreign Government international 

science and technology agreements are consistent with sound 

technology management policies. There are large numbers of these 

agreements already in place or being negotiated with a variety of 

countries. Research topics can include almost any subject in 

which federal agencies are engaged. The inability to give 

exclusive rights in the u.s. to software made by federal 

employees under these agreements makes the likelihood of U.S. 

7 
development of resulting software or technical data highly 

unlikely. 

For instance, if a valuable discovery is created jointly by a 

u.s. Government employee and a foreign scientist, some agreements 

specify that rights for development will be left with the party 

which can establish exclusive rights. This language is generally 

beneficial to the U.S. Of course, in the instance of federally 

created software this provision works against the United States. 

This inability to grant an exclusive license for private sector 

development appears to be a barrier to greater secondary 

application of government training software. This problem is 

elaborated upon in the secon~ part of this report. 

The current problems in commercializing federally created 

software should not be surprising. Just as the government is .not 

in a position to commercialize an invention itself and must 

depend on others to do so, so too is the government in a poor 

position to assume the burden of commercializing software. The 

government does not prepare the software products for the 

commercial market and cannot provide the extensive support 

services needed for complex matters. Such added value can only 

be provided by private industry interested in marketing the 

software. 

8 
But just as patent rights or exclusive licenses are necessary to 

assure the company taking the risks of commercializing a new 

invention that mere imitators with no research costs to recoup 

will not get a "free ride" on its pioneering efforts, so too is 

it necessary to provide similar assurances to software vendors. 

Fithout copyright protection, firms will be unwilling to 

commercialize software in the public domain because of the high 

costs of readying the product for the market. These include 

costs of documentation, preparation of training materials, 

debugging, and establishing user support systems. 

The current provisions in the copyright law denying the 

government copyright protection for valuable works such as 

computer software is a substantial barrier to successful 

technology transfer. Putting such taxpayer-supported discoveries 

in the public domain not only prevents U.S. development, it can 

actually harm our international competitiveness by making this 

software freely available to foreign competitors. Study should 

be immediately given to examining the need for legislation to: 

(a) allow the government to have and convey necessary protection 

to computer software, and (b) reward the creating scientist with 

a percentage of the resulting royalties. 

In making this recommendation, the Department is not advocating 

repeal of that statute. The current law needs to be examined 

only to determine if its application to software,should be 

modified. Section 105 has an impact on matters having nothing to 

9 
do with technology transfer, such as National Park Service 

publications on Yellowstone or Yosemite or Navy Department 

publications on certain ships, and a suggestion of outright 

repeal would be inappropriate. 

It has been clearly demonstrated over the past eight y~ars that 

the changes in federal patent policy have yielded significant 

returns to our economy. The U.S. taxpayer is the real 

beneficiary of these policies which are now stimulating economic 

growth around our universities and now our federal laboratories. 

There is every reason to believe that providing copyright 

protection for valuable computer software created under 

government R&D will also benefit U.S. competitiveness. 

10 
B. Encouraging Greater Access to Federally-Funded 

Training Software 

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502), 

Section 5(3),(B), requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit 

to the President and Congress a "report regarding the 

feasibility and cost of compiling and maintaining a current and 

comprehensive inventory of all federally funded training 

software." P.L. 99-502 defines "training technology" to mean 

computer software and related materials which are developed by 

a Federal agency to train employees of such agency, including 

but not limited to software for computer-based instructional 

systems and for interactive video disc systems. 

The report must address several questions: feasibility, 

quality and cost. Feasibility simply asks is anyone capable of 

providing such an inventory? Quality asks would such an 

inventory be used by anyone to identify and acquire federally 

funded training packages? Serious thought must be given as to 

how software with potential secondary applications is separated 

from those programs with little or no other uses. Little is 

now known on an aggregate scale about the quality of Federally 

funded training packages. This, of course. is the key 

question. Compiling an expensive. exhaustive inventory of 

large numbers of training packages with little secondary -._ 

11 
application is clearly counterproductive. Thus, a limited 

demonstration project appear to be the most prudent course at 

this time. Fragmentary evidence of private interest in high 

quality. federally funded training software exists. A few 

inventories have been compiled for some training packages. 

There are at present no requirements for agencies developing 

training packages to inventory them and make them available for 

public dissemination. Of course. until the question of quality 

is resolved and incentives developed for further private sector 

development provided, it is highly doubtful that inventories 

alone will lead to greater secondary applications of existing 

training packages. 

The next question, the cost and justification of compiling and 

maintaining a current and comprehensive inventory of federally 

funded training packages, is a critical consideration. At this 

time such a sweeping program does not appear justified. 

Another option at no cost to the government. would rely on 

existing authorities to compile a partial inventory. For 

example, the acquisition and dissemination of federal 

scientific and technical information within the National 

Technical Information Service CNTIS) is undertaken on a cost 

reimbursable basis. Identifying individual training packages 

to be included in an NTIS inventory could accomplish the 

inventory function on a self-supporting basis. Again. the 

12 
crucial question is the quality of the programs. This is the 

most prudent option at this time until there is a better 

understanding of the quality and demand for the programs. The 

inventory itself would have to be purchased by users in 

quantities and at a price to sustain the resources needed to 

develop and maintain the inventory. Obviously, if there is not 

sufficient demand to support even a limited inventory a great 

deal of time and expense can be avoided preparing a more 

extensive inventory for which there is little demand. 

The use of computers for training is a relatively new field of 

Computer-Assisted (Aided) Learning (CAL). It is based in a 

number of disciplines. but its primary origins lie .. in computer 

science and psychology. From computer science and its 

predecessors. mathematics and engineering, came the computers 

and the programs that allowed them to function. From 

psychology came the knowledge of learning theory, instructional 

strategies, and motivation. The early applications of CAL were 

confined to fairly simple uses, such as drill and practice, and 

tutorials. The early successes in CAL research led educators 

to proclaim that CAL would revolutionize education. By the mid 

to late seventies, the great promise of CAL had not come about 

and there was disenchantment of many educators as well as key 

funding agencies. Because of the cost of mainframe and 

mini-computers, CAL was used in only a small fraction· of the 

13 
nation's educational institutions and was quite limited. The 

failure of computers to revolutionize education was due to the 

costs of hardware, costs of developing courseware. inadequate 

training of instructors, instructors' fear of technology, and 

exaggerated claims made for CAL. several of these obstacles 

were removed with the commercial introduction of microcomputers 

in the late seventies. With the introduction of 

microcomputers, the development of artificial intelligence and 

expert systems, and the lessons learned from the previous 20 

years, CAL is revolutionizing the use of computers in 

education. currently, CAL is becoming a common method for 

teaching and training students and personnel in business, 

educational, industrial, and military settings. 

Because CAL encompasses a wide spectrum of technical and 

informational technologies, developments in other technological 

areas has also influenced the development of CAL. The impact 

of these technologies to CAL has proven to be beneficial in the 

training field. Research has shown that CAL systems improve 

learning, reduce learning time compared with the traditional 

stand-up or classroom training, and improve the student's 

attitudes towards the computer and the subject matter. In 

addition, CAL allows a consistent training program that can be 

precisely tailored to the needs of the students and may be 

precisely controlled. It allows the student to pace himself or . . . 

14 
herself and lets the instructor act as a counselor and tutor 

rather than as a record keeper. Students benefit by the 

improved educational techniques and the increased one-on-one 

contact with the training supervisor for counselling and 

tutoring. Due to computer tracking. students encountering 

problems can be rapidly identified so that they may be 

assisted. The CAL system's automated and improved ability to 

analyze student performance data will result in improved 

courses. The larger initial investment required for training 

technology will result in greater benefit to organizations in 

the long run. As the number of times the course is presented 

increases, the cost per trainee decreases. 

There ·tas been constderable activity focused on training 

packages the federal sector has developed or is currently 

developing and their potential use by secondary ~sers--public 

and private. In September 1985, the Society for Applied 

Learning Technology in cooperation with the Office of 

Productivity, Technology and Innovation, U.S. Department of 

·commerce, convened a Senior Executive Conference on 

Productivity Improvement. The subject was, "Incentives and 

Barriers to the Application of Technology-Based Learning." The 

conclusion of the conference left no doubt of the scope and 

significance of education and training activity in this country: 

15 
o Educational activity in the United States costs 

$250 billion per year. including universities. public 

education. vocational and industrial training. and adult 

learning. 

o 7\ of the population work in the field of 

education/training and 7\ of the GNP is devoted to it 

o 40% of the population participates in learning activities 

o 2S million adults take some form of education. 60\ 

job-related 

o DOD spends an estimated $13.4 billion on formal training 

each year 

A second Conference convened by the same group in December 

1986. focused specifically on the need to identify ... what is 

currently availabla in coursewa~e and technology. One 

r&commendation of the conferees indicates a potential for 

secondary utilization of federal training resources. It calls 

for. "promoting more interdepartmental coordination and 

communication by Federal agencies. and stimulation a greater 

transfer of technology-based federal learning systems to the 

private sector." 

The State and local government community in the United States 

represents a high potential audience for the use of federally 

funded training software. There are millions of State and 

local government employees. many of whom are wo.c~ing in 

16 
professional and technical skill or clerical areas which can 

utilize electronically-based training software. In fact. it 

would appear that if the Federal Government can identify its 

high quality training programs and allow for subsequent 

development for secondary applications that these programs 

could result in a substantial boost to-state and local 

governments as they proceed to improve staff performance. 

Their training needs are in many ways parallel to those of the 

federal government. 

The public school systems of the nation also constitute a key 

organizational piece with a high potential for ut~lizinq some 

federally funded training soft:.are. These e·rlucational 

institutions are on the firing line on a day-to-day basis to 

train and educate. These institutions have the potential of 

being interested in obtaining relevant software. both for their 

use in achieving their teaching mission. as well as for 

heightening the capability of both their teaching staffs and 

·their support personnel. Interest and momentum are picking up 

in the use of computers for instructional purposes in.local 

school districts. According to Dr. James Mecklenberqer of the 

National Association of School Boards. most schools have some 

microcomputer capability at the present time--VCRs are 

commonplace. He estimates that there are some 10.000-15.000 ·-. 

videodisc recorders in 1.000 school districts. Most school 

17 
districts have a connection with an educational television 

system. Videotape. satellites and distance learning are no 

lonqer considered threatening to faculty to the degree that 

they were in the earlier stages of the movement toward 

technology. 

FEASIBILITY 

A. Identification of Useful Software 

Can federally developed training packages which may have 

secondary uses be identified for new users? 

Little is known on an aggregate scale abou_ the number. content 

or quality of federally funded training packages. The most 

important question of quality cannot be answered by a mere 

inventory. Some partial. specialized inventories have been 

developed by Federal agencies in order to provide access to 

them by partner organizations in State and local govetnments. 

However. at the present time, much of the secondary utilization 

of federally funded training packages results from a high level 

of motivation, persistence and networking skills on the part of 

relatively few individuals scattered throughout those 

organizations. There is no cohesive system to catalogue or 

provide ongoing interaction between potential suppliers and 

18 
users of new training packages. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in the Department of Transportation (DOT). 

have invested substantial amounts of monies in training 

software development and have documented their output to 

facilitate its wider use in the FAA and in other Federal 

government organizations. The Center for the Utilization of 

Federal Technology in the National Technical Information 

Service and the Training and Management Assistance Branch of 

the Off ice of Personnel Management have entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding to stimulate improvement and more 

widespread use of federally funded training technology, 

identify potential methods to enhance the transfer of 

software. However. the most common pattern in civilian 

agencies at this point is for individual program units to move 

into the development of training technology on their own for 

the purpose of meeting specific program needs. Invariably they 

maintain such inventories of the software as they may need 

themselves. Often. as was reported in the surveys conducted in 

support of the study, little is known about the existence of 

training software in other components of their own agency or 

elsewhere in the government. In the Department of Defense 

(DOD). the magnitude and pace of development of training 

software in support of the Department's mission has resulted in 

heightened attention being paid to the need for systemically 

identifying the training software that has been developed with 

19 
DOD support. The investment by DOD and its individual services 

in the development of training packages is substantial. In 

1984 a DOD witness testified before Congress that $262 million 

was invested annually by DOD in educational technology. The 

investment by DOD and its individual services in the 

development of training packages is substantial. In 1984. a 

DOD witness testified before Congress that $262 million was 

invested annually by DOD in educational technology. There is 

no overall Department inventory or any total inventories 

maintained by the individual services at this point. 

Individual components involved in the development of training 

software are maintaining listings in formats of their own 

development of the items they have produced or supported. On 

occasion. periodic survey~ of the field are conducted to rather 

information about the types of training software that exists. 

Several agencies are undertaking efforts to identify training 

packages developed with specific technologies across all 

agencies for secondary distribution, such as the National Audio 

Visual Center CNAVC). These activities illustrate current 

efforts for secondary utilization of federally developed 

training packages. However. none fulfill the definition of a 

"comprehensive" inventories of federally developed training 

software (packages). 

20 
The most common pattern in civilian agencies at this time is 

for individual program units to develop training packages to 

meet specific program needs. Where this is the case. they 

maintain only such inventories of the packages as they may need 

themselves. Often this is no inventory at all. Little is 

known about the existence of training packages in other 

components of their own agency or elsewhere in the government. 

In Spring. 1987. the Association for the Development of 

Computer-based Instructional Systems (ADCIS) queried its 

members on the usefulness of federally funded training 

packages. Membership of ADCIS is equally divided among private 

sector. educational institutions and government. All of the 

Federal agency members responding to the questionnaire 

indicated that their agencies did not have a policy for 

inventorying. on an agency-wide basis. the training packages 

that are developed under their jurisdiction. 

The Department of Energy has management and operating 

contractors in 50 facilities around the country with 130.000 

employees. Many of these facilities develop training packages. 

including those which are electronic-based. in support of their 

missions. An on-line database containing an inventory of 3,000 

training packages has been developed to serve the so facilities 

and encourage exchange within DOE. Some 24-33\ of the current 

database is represented by training software. While some of 

21 
the software is highly technical in nature and site-specific. 

there are examples of individual packages with clear utility 

for secondary users. For example. the Micro-Computer Aided 

Engineering (Micro-CAE). developed by the Lawrence Livermore 

Laboratory which has received widespread application outside 

this lab. 

It is impossible to identify the universe of federal training 

packages without, in effect, creating the inventory being 

analyzed for feasibility and cost. Most Federal agencies have 

developed training packages. Whether secondary users are 

interested in acquiring these packages is the next issue 

addressed in ascertaining the feasibility of an inventory. 

First. federally funded training packages exist. Second, there 

is a need for action to identify them and determine which are 

most likely to have secondary uses. 

In the fall of 1986, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of 

International Labor Affairs and the U.S. Department of 

Commerce's National Technical Information Service convened a 

Roundtable to, "Identify and Distribute Education and Training 

Programs and Materials Developed Within the U.S. Government or 

Otherwise in the Public Domain." There convenors queried the 

Federal and State training community regarding the existence 

within the Federal sector of packages and if there were 

22 
potential secondary users. Over half of the federal 

respondents know of packages with potential for secondary 

utilization if properly adapted. The remaining respondents 

were not aware of what was being developed in the Federal 

sector. They were therefore unable to indicate candidate 

packages for secondary use. All respondents noted a need for 

training materials and confirmed that if useful packages 

existed. there would be secondary users. Of course, the 

central question is how many of the existing packages are 

"useful" and what modifications are needed for achieving 

secondary applications. 

There is an opportunity for direct application of many generic 

software items in management, basic skills development, and 

other general areas within federal government agencies. Where 

missions are similar, specialized packages could be utilized 

with relatively minor adaptation. The interagency utilization· 

of specialized training software is already being 

demonstrated. one such example is the Federal Aviation 

· Administration. which develops complex technology-based 

training software in direct support of its mission. .The 

training is then used by personnel of the Coast Guard, the Air 

Force and the Navy. A number of other examples of such 

multi-agency utilization exist. There is potential for far 

more sharing were information about existing training software 

more widely available. 

23 
c. Comprehensive Inventory Option 

Given that a comprehensive inventory of federally developed 

training packages is feasible. what issues will affect its 

maximum utility? 

The data elements used to describe each entry in the inventory 

will substantially affect the utility of the inventory. It 

became apparent.during the joint effort between NTIS and OPM 

that standard categorization terms for federal scientific and 

technical information did not include descriptors relevant to 

training packages. The meetings and evaluations conducted in 

the process of this study identified the absence of usable data 

elements to identify the uses and limits of train~ng packages. 

especi.,lly if these packages included use of new technologies. 

FQr example. DOD has established the Defense Training and 

Performance Data Center (TPDC) in Orlando. Florida to 

facilitate the identification of training packages for transfer 

within the armed services. The TPDC is developing a prototype 

catalog of computer-based training systems which have been 

developed by the military. a courseware directory and a study 

of the impacts of new training technologies. The contractor 

identified at least 100 major interactive training systems. 

The effort involved finding out what data are needed. how the 

data are best obtained. and. how to make the data available to 

24 
interested parties. The complexity and difficulty of 

developing the information which a potential user must have to 

make a meaningful assessment of a given piece of training 

software contained within a training package is substantial. 

our findings support that there are some federally funded 

training packages with potential secondary utilization.. It is 

also clear that they are obtainable but only in random manner. 

This has serious implications for the development of a 

comprehensive inventory. Simple identification that a training 

package exists is fraught with tremendous burdens on agencies' 

limited resources. Currently agencies are not required to 

identify or submit for cataloguing packages they de~m as 

developed for "uniqu~·· agency training needs. But they are so 

required of materials intended for outside use. Should an 

agency voluntarily identify these packages--or any training 

materials--there is potential demand from secondary users. 

Meeting this demand requires considerable resources in 

personnel time to respond to inquiries and funds to duplicate 

and disseminate the materials. The agencies are reluctant to 

assume these burdens and have received no guidance to do so. 

They are generally discouraged from becoming involved in 

secondary utilization of their training packages because the 

resources to do so are lacking. 

25 
If secondary uses of training materials are to be encouraged. 

it will either require large expenditures of money or providing 

incentives for seeking secondary applications. In the case of 

patentable technology, this was accomplished through contractor 

ownership of those programs created under grants and contracts, 

and by allowing the federal agencies to keep royalties brought 

in through commercialization of inventions under the Federal 

Technology Transfer Act. Thought should be given to creating 

similar incentives for federal agencies creating important 

software packages to encourage broader application in the U.S. 

Of course, this is not possible unless the copyright Act is 

amended as outlined in Part A of this report. 

.· 

COST 

A "comprehensive" inventory suggests identification of all 

federally funded training packages. and, on a continuing 

basis. However, an inventory might include only those packages 

identified by established criteria to be generic--not unique to 

a specific agency's training needs--or adaptable, with minor 

modifications to secondary users with closely related. training 

needs. This is a broad question and is incorporated in this 

study to identify several options and their associated costs. 

The options include: a no-cost to government-user financed 

option. demonstration option(s), and a comprehensive inventory 

option. 

26 
A. User Financed Option 

This no cost to government option could be accomplished by 

performing the inventory of federally funded training packages 

on a self-supporting basis. NTIS operates in this .mode with 

all voluntarily submitted scientific and technical information 

(STI). This already includes some federally developed training 

packages. Some issues are apparent--the quality of the 

materials inventoried, timeliness and comprehensiveness. For 

NTIS to develop a comprehensive inventory, the demand for the 

inventory would have to be sufficient to stipport the cost of 

its development. Of course, absent this demand there is little 

reason for any such project. Care would have to be taken to 

identify training packages with potential demand in order to 

suppcrt the process. These packages may include new 

technologies such as interactive diskettes. Additional costs 

necessary for the collection, archiving and dissemination of 

federal training packages have not been identified. Care must 

be taken that any inventory not include taking proprietary 

rights to sell software from their creators. Thus, the best, 

most effective option at this time is a referral service 

linking potential users directly with the Federal Agencies or 

private sector contractors who have created high quality 

training packages. A fee could be charged for such referrals 

to make the listing service self supporting. 

27 
B. Three Other Demonstration Options 

A demonstration option could be undertaken in several different 

ways. (A) A small number of federal agencies developing 

training packages which appear to have high potential for. 

secondary utilization could be identified and their training 

packages included in an inventory. (B) or. training packages 

from these same agencies could be comprehensively inventoried. 

(C) or. an inventory of all federal agencies• training packages 

limited to those training packages which have high potential 

for secondary utilization could be developed. 

The demonstration options would require personnel and money. 

Until the questions of demand and quality of the training 

materials can be determined in a user-financed program. the 

demonstration projects are premature. 

c. Comprehensive Inventory Option 

A comprehensive inventory of all federally developed training 

packages is the third option. The cost for this option is 

approximately $1.s10.ooo. which includes a director and 15 

individuals. There is no justification at this time for such a 

project at taxpayer expense. 

28