You are on page 1of 4

r

issue 10
[Selection JIG, continued from page 1] july 2003

tions for the benefit of both service units. accurate records of disposition of deposits to satisfy legal re-
Both Bland and Sweeney saw many quirements; consistent application of selection criteria; and re-
positive results of the cooperative efforts duction of bottlenecks in workflow by having more people select IT Procurement on Schedule
of the two service units. “I think all group material. Benefits for Library Services in having Copyright
members gained detailed knowledge of Office staff make routine selection decisions include eliminating
Office Gathers Feedback on
Copyright Office processing procedures redundant searching and selection activities and providing larger
Document Recordation
and an understanding of how Library Ser- pools of staff trained to make routine selection decisions,
vices selection officers and recommend- thereby allowing Library of Congress selection officers to focus
ing officers interact with each other and on material that requires the greatest amount of judgment. Li- Second ITTRB Meeting
the material,” said Sweeney. “Our recom- brary of Congress selection officers will continue to play a criti-
mended redesigned selection workflow cal role in selecting nonroutine items for the Library’s collection c opyright offic e r e e n g i n e e r i n g u p dat e
should enable copyright examiners to and in training, coaching, and conducting quality reviews of the
make accurate selection decisions on routine items selected by Copyright Office staff.
most routine works while allowing Li- In early April, the Selection JIG presented its recommenda-
brary Services selection officers to con- tions to the Register’s Conference. The proposal was very well re-
centrate their efforts on selecting works ceived, and the group felt that it was worth pursuing. Through a Selection Joint Issue Group
that require their level of expertise. This suggested pilot project, the Selection JIG proposes to test the
division of labor should result in material transfer of routine selection responsibilities for commercially A Closer Look at Cooperative Efforts of
moving quickly through both the Copy- published 408 Monograph (TX) and Performing Arts (PA) music Library Services and Copyright
right Office and Library Services.” For materials to the Copyright Office. “We hope to get the pilot
Jeannine Panzera
Bland, it was “an excellent learning expe- started in early 2004,” said Bland. The pilot will involve teams
rience about selection. There were many from the Examining Division’s Literary and Performing Arts sec-

p h oto by c h a r l e s g i b b o n s
details and difficult technical vocabulary tions following the draft pilot design and procedures prepared by In the May 2003 issue, ReNews ran an article on the five Joint
that took some time to learn. But I the Selection JIG. The pilot will also include training staff in the Issue Groups (JIGs) the Copyright Office formed with Library
learned a great deal about the Library and Copyright Acquisitions Division in selecting voluntary 407 items. Services. This month, cochairs of the Selection JIG Thomas
the usefulness of our [copyright] deposits Both Bland and Sweeney felt that the overall recommendations Bland of the Copyright Examining Division, and Mark Sweeney
and what happens to them after they of the Selection JIG were quite promising. “I believe we made ra- of Library Services, Preservation Reformatting Division, talked
leave our hands.” tional recommendations that should be a benefit to both Copy- to ReNews about the objectives of their group, the cooperative
Many issues were discussed at length, right Office and Library Services operations. The proof will be in efforts between the two service units, and the need for change in
including the definition of the word rou- a successful pilot. The ultimate objective is the pilot that will vali- selection procedures.
tine. “Routine for Copyright typically date our selection recommendations,” Sweeney said. Bland also It is well known throughout the Library that the Copyright
means quick processing. This does not felt that the outcome was very beneficial. “We began by thinking Office is undergoing a major reengineering process. This process
necessarily match what the Library con- outside the box: what would be most efficient? Was learning selec- will have a large impact on Library Services because copyright de-
siders ‘routine’ for its selection officers,” tion, tagging, etc. too intricate a process and too time-consuming posits are an important acquisition source for the Library’s col-
Bland said. But overall, Sweeney believes for the Register Claim staff? Then we decided what was reason- lections. “It was in the interest of both the Copyright Office and
that the group “reached consensus fairly able to be able to accomplish—and accomplish well.” Library Services to examine how selection is currently performed Mark Sweeney (left) and Thomas Bland
early in our deliberations that a The full report of the Selection JIG is posted on the Copy- with an eye to developing a more integrated workflow that would
significant amount of material being re- right Reengineering website at www.loc.gov/staff/copyright. Ô benefit both operations,” said Sweeney. Bland said that it was the In addition to the cochairs, the Selec-
ceived on a daily basis and reviewed by general “recommendation by the [Copyright Process] Reengi- tion JIG members included Jan Lauridsen,
Library Services selection officers could Jeannine Panzera is a summer intern in the Reengineering neering team to consider the possibility of change to increase Michael Neubert, Edward Malone from
be identified as ‘routine’ with a known se- Program Office. efficient flow of materials.” After reviewing the current processes, Library Services and Donna Clark, Cecile
lection outcome based on existing collec- the Selection JIG members thought that some routine material Horowitz, and Debbie Weinstein from
tion policy statements. We also came to could be sorted and selected by copyright examiners. “Many cata- the Copyright Office. The group was
appreciate the ability of seasoned examin- logers in the Copyright Office are actually already familiar with charged with documenting the current se-
ers to identify ‘routine’ works.” the Library’s wants, guidelines, and expectations for selecting ma- lection practice for material received
For the Copyright Office, allowing its
staff to make routine selection decisions
sb terials. We came to believe that, with adequate training, other
staff members of the Register Claim Division could successfully
through copyright, recommending ways to
improve those practices, and designing a
ReNews Reengineering Update
could provide many benefits, including Published by the Publications Section [lm-455], select materials that were considered routine,” Bland said. pilot program to test the recommenda-
Information and Reference Division, Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Publications Staff [Continues on back panel]
Writer ⁄ Editors · Judith Nierman, 707-6816, and Ruth Sievers, 707-9168
Designer · Charles Gibbons, 707-3313
• s | j u ly 2 0 0 3
IT Procurement Proceeds
on Schedule Copyright Office Gathers Public
Michael Burke
Feedback on the Document
The present focus of the information technology (IT) front is on The solicitation document will be re- Recordation Process
the procurement of contract resources to develop the new inte- leased to the Millennia Lite Group 4 con-
grated software infrastructure. This article is a follow-on to my tractors following final adjustments and
article in the June 2003 issue of ReNews and will describe the se- clarifications by RPO and FEDSIM staff. In June 2002, the Record Document (RD) Implementation Team presented its process re-
lection of FEDSIM (Federal Systems Integration and Manage- Proposals will be due into FEDSIM by design recommendations and draft procedures manual to the Business Process Reengineer-
ment Center) for contract administration and Millennia Lite for July 21. The contractors’ oral presenta- ing Steering Committee. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters decided that, before pro-
the contract vehicle. tions will be conducted during the week ceeding with the design recommendations, the Office should consult with document
After consultation with the FEDSIM staff, specific dates were of July 28, and a contract will be awarded customers. The purpose of the consultation was to evaluate how the Office handles the
set for the key steps in the procurement process, and some of by August 22. Ô document recordation process. The information gained from the outreach meeting helped
those steps have been completed. First and foremost, Reengi- in clarifying the scope of responsibilities of the Documents Recordation Section. (See Au-
neering Program Office (RPO) staff completed the drafting of gust 2002 ReNews for RD Implementation Team design recommendations).
the statement of objectives that outlines what the Copyright
Office expects to accomplish with the new software infrastruc- Prior to scheduling a meeting with cus- the document itself, such as contact in-
ture. The IT objectives are related back to the reengineered busi- tomers, the Office sent a questionnaire to formation and certification language for
ness processes, and the objectives are defined in terms of major ITTRB Holds Second 47 document filers and 11 document users photocopies. Document filers expressed
system components. Contractors interested in doing the work Meeting asking for their views about the services their desire that the Office examine
will be required to submit proposals defining how they would the Office provides for recording docu- documents only for what is required by
provide a system to achieve the objectives, what software they Staff from the Reengineering Program ments. The Office received a number of law, which includes checking for com-
would use, and how they would configure and integrate the soft- Office held the second meeting with mem- responses to the questionnaire, and on pleteness, original signature, and legibil-
ware to meet the functional requirements. bers of the Information Technology Tech- March 31, 2003, thirteen frequent filers ity. Attendees were not eager for elec-
On May 27, FEDSIM notified the Millennia Lite contractors nical Review Board (ITTRB) on May 20, and users joined the Register and several tronic filing of documents because they
about the impending solicitation and pointed them to a website 2003, in the Copyright Office. Copyright Office staff at a meeting at the do not have the documents in electronic
constructed by Copyright Office staff that contains the draft Robert Dizard, Copyright Office Staff Copyright Office to discuss the informa- form currently, and there is a question
statement of objectives for comment and a set of related docu- Director, updated the group on the overall tion gathered from the questionnaire. about original signatures still required
ments. These documents include the Copyright Office process reengineering effort. Mike Burke, Chief of Discussion at the meeting focused on by the statute.
reengineering recommendations and the findings and recom- the Copyright Automation Group, gave an some questions relating to recording No- With the information gathered at the
mendations from the IT requirements analysis. Interested con- IT (information technology) update and tices of Termination, the potential future meeting, the Reengineering Program
tractors were invited to a June 2 briefing by RPO staff. Those described the current IT acquisition pro- submission of documents electronically, Office (RPO) will review Record Docu-
contractors attending were provided with a description of the cess and acquisition schedule. usefulness of, or problems with, the ment job roles completed last year and re-
overarching goal to provide timely public service of high quality Members of the Board provided valuable Document Cover Sheet, and the recom- vise them as appropriate. Also, based on
and were told how the Copyright Office envisions the achieve- input and guidance from their own experi- mended scope of examination of docu- the results of the public feedback, the
ment of that goal through new business processes supported by ences on topics including IT procurement, ments submitted for recordation. RPO team will revise, as necessary, the
an integrated and responsive IT system. user involvement, and privacy and security The documents public outreach Record Document procedures manual de-
On June 5 and 9, the interested contractors were afforded a issues. They also supported the Office’s de- meeting was helpful in several respects. veloped last year. Ô
further opportunity for a one-on-one dialog with RPO staff to cision to use the Federal Systems Integra- The group discussed the current Docu-
obtain information that would allow them to prepare the best tion and Management Center (FEDSIM) ment Cover Sheet and found that some
solutions. The number of contractors attending was encouraging to manage the procurement of contract re- document filers view the current cover
and promised several good proposals. sources to develop the new IT systems. sheet as confusing or as a means to edit
The group plans to reconvene in Sep- or expand the document. The Office
tember after the Copyright Office awards plans to redesign the Document Cover
the IT contract. The group could convene Sheet and to rewrite the instructions so
earlier if there is a need for additional in- the cover sheet will contain only essen-
sight on any aspect of the IT procurement tial information that is not contained in
process. Ô

• s | j u ly 2 0 0 3 j u ly 2 0 0 3 | s•
IT Procurement Proceeds
on Schedule Copyright Office Gathers Public
Michael Burke
Feedback on the Document
The present focus of the information technology (IT) front is on The solicitation document will be re- Recordation Process
the procurement of contract resources to develop the new inte- leased to the Millennia Lite Group 4 con-
grated software infrastructure. This article is a follow-on to my tractors following final adjustments and
article in the June 2003 issue of ReNews and will describe the se- clarifications by RPO and FEDSIM staff. In June 2002, the Record Document (RD) Implementation Team presented its process re-
lection of FEDSIM (Federal Systems Integration and Manage- Proposals will be due into FEDSIM by design recommendations and draft procedures manual to the Business Process Reengineer-
ment Center) for contract administration and Millennia Lite for July 21. The contractors’ oral presenta- ing Steering Committee. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters decided that, before pro-
the contract vehicle. tions will be conducted during the week ceeding with the design recommendations, the Office should consult with document
After consultation with the FEDSIM staff, specific dates were of July 28, and a contract will be awarded customers. The purpose of the consultation was to evaluate how the Office handles the
set for the key steps in the procurement process, and some of by August 22. Ô document recordation process. The information gained from the outreach meeting helped
those steps have been completed. First and foremost, Reengi- in clarifying the scope of responsibilities of the Documents Recordation Section. (See Au-
neering Program Office (RPO) staff completed the drafting of gust 2002 ReNews for RD Implementation Team design recommendations).
the statement of objectives that outlines what the Copyright
Office expects to accomplish with the new software infrastruc- Prior to scheduling a meeting with cus- the document itself, such as contact in-
ture. The IT objectives are related back to the reengineered busi- tomers, the Office sent a questionnaire to formation and certification language for
ness processes, and the objectives are defined in terms of major ITTRB Holds Second 47 document filers and 11 document users photocopies. Document filers expressed
system components. Contractors interested in doing the work Meeting asking for their views about the services their desire that the Office examine
will be required to submit proposals defining how they would the Office provides for recording docu- documents only for what is required by
provide a system to achieve the objectives, what software they Staff from the Reengineering Program ments. The Office received a number of law, which includes checking for com-
would use, and how they would configure and integrate the soft- Office held the second meeting with mem- responses to the questionnaire, and on pleteness, original signature, and legibil-
ware to meet the functional requirements. bers of the Information Technology Tech- March 31, 2003, thirteen frequent filers ity. Attendees were not eager for elec-
On May 27, FEDSIM notified the Millennia Lite contractors nical Review Board (ITTRB) on May 20, and users joined the Register and several tronic filing of documents because they
about the impending solicitation and pointed them to a website 2003, in the Copyright Office. Copyright Office staff at a meeting at the do not have the documents in electronic
constructed by Copyright Office staff that contains the draft Robert Dizard, Copyright Office Staff Copyright Office to discuss the informa- form currently, and there is a question
statement of objectives for comment and a set of related docu- Director, updated the group on the overall tion gathered from the questionnaire. about original signatures still required
ments. These documents include the Copyright Office process reengineering effort. Mike Burke, Chief of Discussion at the meeting focused on by the statute.
reengineering recommendations and the findings and recom- the Copyright Automation Group, gave an some questions relating to recording No- With the information gathered at the
mendations from the IT requirements analysis. Interested con- IT (information technology) update and tices of Termination, the potential future meeting, the Reengineering Program
tractors were invited to a June 2 briefing by RPO staff. Those described the current IT acquisition pro- submission of documents electronically, Office (RPO) will review Record Docu-
contractors attending were provided with a description of the cess and acquisition schedule. usefulness of, or problems with, the ment job roles completed last year and re-
overarching goal to provide timely public service of high quality Members of the Board provided valuable Document Cover Sheet, and the recom- vise them as appropriate. Also, based on
and were told how the Copyright Office envisions the achieve- input and guidance from their own experi- mended scope of examination of docu- the results of the public feedback, the
ment of that goal through new business processes supported by ences on topics including IT procurement, ments submitted for recordation. RPO team will revise, as necessary, the
an integrated and responsive IT system. user involvement, and privacy and security The documents public outreach Record Document procedures manual de-
On June 5 and 9, the interested contractors were afforded a issues. They also supported the Office’s de- meeting was helpful in several respects. veloped last year. Ô
further opportunity for a one-on-one dialog with RPO staff to cision to use the Federal Systems Integra- The group discussed the current Docu-
obtain information that would allow them to prepare the best tion and Management Center (FEDSIM) ment Cover Sheet and found that some
solutions. The number of contractors attending was encouraging to manage the procurement of contract re- document filers view the current cover
and promised several good proposals. sources to develop the new IT systems. sheet as confusing or as a means to edit
The group plans to reconvene in Sep- or expand the document. The Office
tember after the Copyright Office awards plans to redesign the Document Cover
the IT contract. The group could convene Sheet and to rewrite the instructions so
earlier if there is a need for additional in- the cover sheet will contain only essen-
sight on any aspect of the IT procurement tial information that is not contained in
process. Ô

• s | j u ly 2 0 0 3 j u ly 2 0 0 3 | s•
r
issue 10
[Selection JIG, continued from page 1] july 2003

tions for the benefit of both service units. accurate records of disposition of deposits to satisfy legal re-
Both Bland and Sweeney saw many quirements; consistent application of selection criteria; and re-
positive results of the cooperative efforts duction of bottlenecks in workflow by having more people select IT Procurement on Schedule
of the two service units. “I think all group material. Benefits for Library Services in having Copyright
members gained detailed knowledge of Office staff make routine selection decisions include eliminating
Office Gathers Feedback on
Copyright Office processing procedures redundant searching and selection activities and providing larger
Document Recordation
and an understanding of how Library Ser- pools of staff trained to make routine selection decisions,
vices selection officers and recommend- thereby allowing Library of Congress selection officers to focus
ing officers interact with each other and on material that requires the greatest amount of judgment. Li- Second ITTRB Meeting
the material,” said Sweeney. “Our recom- brary of Congress selection officers will continue to play a criti-
mended redesigned selection workflow cal role in selecting nonroutine items for the Library’s collection c opyright offic e r e e n g i n e e r i n g u p dat e
should enable copyright examiners to and in training, coaching, and conducting quality reviews of the
make accurate selection decisions on routine items selected by Copyright Office staff.
most routine works while allowing Li- In early April, the Selection JIG presented its recommenda-
brary Services selection officers to con- tions to the Register’s Conference. The proposal was very well re-
centrate their efforts on selecting works ceived, and the group felt that it was worth pursuing. Through a Selection Joint Issue Group
that require their level of expertise. This suggested pilot project, the Selection JIG proposes to test the
division of labor should result in material transfer of routine selection responsibilities for commercially A Closer Look at Cooperative Efforts of
moving quickly through both the Copy- published 408 Monograph (TX) and Performing Arts (PA) music Library Services and Copyright
right Office and Library Services.” For materials to the Copyright Office. “We hope to get the pilot
Jeannine Panzera
Bland, it was “an excellent learning expe- started in early 2004,” said Bland. The pilot will involve teams
rience about selection. There were many from the Examining Division’s Literary and Performing Arts sec-

p h oto by c h a r l e s g i b b o n s
details and difficult technical vocabulary tions following the draft pilot design and procedures prepared by In the May 2003 issue, ReNews ran an article on the five Joint
that took some time to learn. But I the Selection JIG. The pilot will also include training staff in the Issue Groups (JIGs) the Copyright Office formed with Library
learned a great deal about the Library and Copyright Acquisitions Division in selecting voluntary 407 items. Services. This month, cochairs of the Selection JIG Thomas
the usefulness of our [copyright] deposits Both Bland and Sweeney felt that the overall recommendations Bland of the Copyright Examining Division, and Mark Sweeney
and what happens to them after they of the Selection JIG were quite promising. “I believe we made ra- of Library Services, Preservation Reformatting Division, talked
leave our hands.” tional recommendations that should be a benefit to both Copy- to ReNews about the objectives of their group, the cooperative
Many issues were discussed at length, right Office and Library Services operations. The proof will be in efforts between the two service units, and the need for change in
including the definition of the word rou- a successful pilot. The ultimate objective is the pilot that will vali- selection procedures.
tine. “Routine for Copyright typically date our selection recommendations,” Sweeney said. Bland also It is well known throughout the Library that the Copyright
means quick processing. This does not felt that the outcome was very beneficial. “We began by thinking Office is undergoing a major reengineering process. This process
necessarily match what the Library con- outside the box: what would be most efficient? Was learning selec- will have a large impact on Library Services because copyright de-
siders ‘routine’ for its selection officers,” tion, tagging, etc. too intricate a process and too time-consuming posits are an important acquisition source for the Library’s col-
Bland said. But overall, Sweeney believes for the Register Claim staff? Then we decided what was reason- lections. “It was in the interest of both the Copyright Office and
that the group “reached consensus fairly able to be able to accomplish—and accomplish well.” Library Services to examine how selection is currently performed Mark Sweeney (left) and Thomas Bland
early in our deliberations that a The full report of the Selection JIG is posted on the Copy- with an eye to developing a more integrated workflow that would
significant amount of material being re- right Reengineering website at www.loc.gov/staff/copyright. Ô benefit both operations,” said Sweeney. Bland said that it was the In addition to the cochairs, the Selec-
ceived on a daily basis and reviewed by general “recommendation by the [Copyright Process] Reengi- tion JIG members included Jan Lauridsen,
Library Services selection officers could Jeannine Panzera is a summer intern in the Reengineering neering team to consider the possibility of change to increase Michael Neubert, Edward Malone from
be identified as ‘routine’ with a known se- Program Office. efficient flow of materials.” After reviewing the current processes, Library Services and Donna Clark, Cecile
lection outcome based on existing collec- the Selection JIG members thought that some routine material Horowitz, and Debbie Weinstein from
tion policy statements. We also came to could be sorted and selected by copyright examiners. “Many cata- the Copyright Office. The group was
appreciate the ability of seasoned examin- logers in the Copyright Office are actually already familiar with charged with documenting the current se-
ers to identify ‘routine’ works.” the Library’s wants, guidelines, and expectations for selecting ma- lection practice for material received
For the Copyright Office, allowing its
staff to make routine selection decisions
sb terials. We came to believe that, with adequate training, other
staff members of the Register Claim Division could successfully
through copyright, recommending ways to
improve those practices, and designing a
ReNews Reengineering Update
could provide many benefits, including Published by the Publications Section [lm-455], select materials that were considered routine,” Bland said. pilot program to test the recommenda-
Information and Reference Division, Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Publications Staff [Continues on back panel]
Writer ⁄ Editors · Judith Nierman, 707-6816, and Ruth Sievers, 707-9168
Designer · Charles Gibbons, 707-3313
• s | j u ly 2 0 0 3