APPENDIX C-1

APPENDIX E-1
Summary of GILS Conference Survey Results

Table of Contents

1.0. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1
2.0. DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS........................................................1
3.0. RESULTS.............................................................................................................1
       3.1. Characteristics of Respondents........................................................................1
       3.2. Respondents Definitions of GILS.....................................................................5
       3.3. Assessment of Key Issues...............................................................................7
       3.4. Additional Comments Provided by Respondents..............................................11
              3.4.1. "Questions and Issues" Responses.........................................................11
              3.4.2. "Complaints and Concerns" Responses..................................................12
              3.4.3. "Recommendation" Responses...............................................................14
              3.4.4. "General" Responses.............................................................................15
              3.4.5. "Here To Learn" Responses..................................................................15

Table E1-1: Settings in Which Respondents Work.........................................................2
Table E1-2: Field in Which Respondents Work.............................................................3
Table E1-3: Involvement with GILS..............................................................................3
Table E1-4: Respondent’s Agencies’ GILS Implementation...........................................4
Table E1-5: Familiarity with GILS Documents/Policies..................................................4
Table E1-6: Familiarity with GILS Documents/Policies (Reduced).................................5
Table E1-7: Definition of GILS – Functions..................................................................6
Table E1-8: Type of Information in GILS.....................................................................6
Table E1-9: Users of GILS..........................................................................................6
Table E1-10: GILS Coverage......................................................................................7
Table E1-11: Key Issues.............................................................................................8
Table E1-12: Key Issues (Reduced).............................................................................9
Table E1-13: Use of GILS.......................................................................................... 9
Table E1-14: Favorite Online Alternative to GILS........................................................10

1.0. INTRODUCTION

The following provides an analysis and interpretation of the results of a survey questionnaire distributed to participants at the Second Annual GILS Conference (November 13-14, 1996). Approximately 300 people were scheduled to attend the conference. A total of 181 completed questionnaires.

The questionnaire was intended primarily to solicit from people who could reasonably be expected to know about GILS their assessment of a set of key GILS issues. In addition, the survey offered the opportunity to collect information to gauge respondents knowledge and awareness of GILS-related policy and technologies. The questionnaire was passed out early on the first day of the Conference and was intended to gauge respondents’ assessments based on their existing knowledge rather than knowledge gained from the Conference.

2.0. DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The questionnaire (see Appendix D-3 copy of survey instrument) included open- and closed-ended questions. Respondents were asked for minimal demographic information that would provide context as to the characteristics of the respondents and their responses. All data were entered into Access database and statistics generated via Excel. Once the data were entered, 20 randomly selected questionnaires (approximately 10%) and their corresponding database entries were reviewed for accuracy.

Simple descriptive statistics were produced for the data from the closed-ended questions. For the open-ended questions, content analysis was performed to categorize and understand responses. Preliminary coding categories were developed based on the actual data rather overlaying a coding scheme on the data.

3.0. RESULTS

The following sections report on the results of the survey. Section 3.1 Characteristics of Respondents addresses the demographic information provided.\

3.1. Characteristics of Respondents

Questions 2 through 7 asked respondents for information about where they work, what type of work they do, their involvement with GILS, and their familiarity with GILS policies and documents.

Settings in Which Respondents Work
Question 2 asked respondents were asked to identify the setting that best described where they worked. Four named choices were offered with a fifth choice of "Other." Table E1-1 summarizes the data from Question 2. Given the venue and focus of the GILS Conference, it is not surprising that the vast majority of respondents work in Federal agencies.

Table E1-1
Settings in Which Respondents Work

Setting	N	%
Federal Agency	145	78%
State or Local Government	17	9%
Private Non-Profit Organization	6	3%
Private For-Profit Organization	6	3%
Library	4	2%
Contractor to agency	2	1%
Other	5	3%
TOTAL	185*	99%**

* Respondents marked multiple choices so N exceeds the 181 completed surveys.
** Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

The category of "Other" included the following respondent-generated answers to identify further their settings:

Canadian Government
Commonwealth (Australia)
Consultant to all of the above
Employee Commission
European Research Agency.

Years of Experience
Question 3 asked respondents for the years of experience they had in this setting. The average number of years was 15 years with a maximum of 37 years reported. The mode was 20 years, which indicates that the majority of respondents are not novices in their work settings. In fact, if one extrapolates an "age" of respondent based on their years in the setting, one can assume that the majority of respondents were between 40-50 years old (assume work life beginning at 21 plus 20 years in the setting).

Field in Which Respondents Work
Question 4 asked respondents to identify the field in which they worked. As in question 2, respondents were offered twelve named choices, with an additional choice of "Other." Table E1-2 summarizes the data from Question 4.

Table E1-2
Field in Which Respondents Work

Setting	N	%
Records Management	67	34%
Information Resources Management	35	18%
Library/Information Center	29	15%
Public Information	19	10%
Program Office/Project Management	10	5%
Computer Systems	8	4%
Archives	7	4%
Chief Information Office	6	3%
Legal/Legislative	4	2%
Software Developer	3	2%
Sales/Marketing	3	2%
Research and Development	1	1%
Procurement/Contracting	0	0%
Other	8	4%
TOTAL	200*	104%**

* Respondents marked multiple choices so N exceeds the 181 completed surveys.
** Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

The category of "Other" included the following respondent-generated descriptions to identify further their field of work:

Administrative services, including document management, mail services, etc.
Advocacy
Management Analyst
State-wide Planning
Trainer, Outreach Analyst
Web Entrepreneur
Webmaster for Office (new position).

Respondent Involvement with GILS
Question 5 asked respondents about their involvement with GILS. Six named choices were available to the respondents, with an additional choice of "Other. Table E1-3 summarizes respondents answers. The majority of respondents have some involvement with GILS.

Table E1-3
Involvement with GILS

Involvement	N	%
Implementor	81	39%
GILS Record Creator/Maintainer	46	22%
User	39	19%
Policymaker	19	9%
Technical Standards Developer	5	2%
Information Reseller	4	2%
Integration/Interoperability	2	1%
Trainer/User Support	2	1%
Other	8	4%
TOTAL	206*	99%**

*Respondents marked multiple choices so N exceeds the 181 completed surveys.
**Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

The category of "Other" included the following as stated by the respondents to identify further their involvement with GILS:

Curious about GILS, possible future user
I wear more than one categorical hat
Information management consulting
Information systems developer
Rabble rouser
Software tools
Technical support
Trying to find out what GILS is and its requirements.

In terms of the audience for which Conference was intended, the majority of respondents were involved in one way or another with GILS. The specifics of that GILS involvement was not addressed by the survey. For example, involvement as "user" did not specify the type of use nor the extent of GILS use by the respondents.

Agency Involvement with GILS

Question 6 asked respondents to describe their agencies’ involvement with GILS and their implementations. Table E1-4 summarizes the results from this question.

Table E1-4
Respondent’s Agencies’ GILS Implementation

Agency Implementation	YES		NO		D/K		TOTAL
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%*
Operates a GILS Server	66	46%	60	42%	16	11%	142	99%
Submits Records to Others	59	42%	59	42%	24	17%	142	101%
Part of Larger GILS Effort	69	51%	47	35%	20	15%	136	101%

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Respondent Familiarity with GILS Documents & Policies
Question 7 attempted to gauge respondents current knowledge (prior to the Conference) of relevant GILS policies and documents. Respondents identified their familiarity on a Likert Scale with 1 = Very Familiar and 5 = Not Familiar. Table E1-5 summarizes the results from this question.

Table E1-5
Familiarity with GILS Documents/Policies

GILS Documents/Policies	1		2		3		4		5		Blank		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Federal GILS Policies	45	25	41	23	40	22	22	12	30	17	3	2	181	101
Agency’s GILS Policies	49	27	32	18	24	13	19	10	28	15	29**	16	181	99
NARA’s Guidelines	40	22	42	23	32	18	25	14	38	21	4	2	181	100
OMB Bulletin 95-01	40	22	46	25	30	17	28	15	34	19	3	2	181	100
Z39.50 Standard	7	4	31	17	45	25	35	19	57	31	6	3	181	99
FIPS No. 192	17	9	24	13	30	17	45	25	61	34	4	2	181	100
PRA 1995, GILS Section	45	25	36	20	45	25	28	15	25	14	2	1	181	100
The World Wide Web	72	40	49	27	30	17	17	9	11	6	2	1	181	100

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.
** Due to high number of conference attendees not employed by a federal agency.

Another perspective on the answers to Question 7 is to collapse the cells for the Likert Scale choices into one for Familiar (comprising 1 and 2) and one for Not Familiar (comprising 4 and 5). This isolates the cells for Likert Scale choice 3. Table E1-6 presents this information.

Table E1-6
Familiarity with GILS Documents/Policies (Reduced)

GILS Documents/Policies	Familiar		3		Not Familiar		Blank		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%*
Federal GILS Policies	86	48	40	22	52	29	3	2	181	101
Agency’s GILS Policies	81	45	24	13	47	26	29	15	181	99
NARA’s Guidelines/Record creation	82	45	32	18	63	35	4	2	181	100
OMB Bulletin 95-01	86	48	30	17	62	34	3	2	181	101
Z39.50 Standard	38	21	45	25	92	51	6	3	181	100
FIPS No. 192	41	22	30	17	106	59	4	2	181	100
PRA 1995, GILS Section	81	45	45	25	53	29	2	1	181	100
The World Wide Web	121	67	30	17	28	15	2	1	181	100

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

When one looks at Table E1-6, it becomes evident that the majority of respondents do not have familiarity with some of the basic documents and policies that underpin the GILS effort. Less than half of the respondents stated familiarity with OMB 95-01. The responses to this question raise the issue of the extent and nature of training and education on GILS that has been available. Since Z39.50 is a key aspect of GILS, it is worrisome that only approximately 20% of the respondents were familiar with either the standard or the Federal Processing Standard, FIPS No. 192, that mandates the use of Z39.50 for agency GILS implementations.

3.2. Respondents Definitions of GILS

The researchers were interested in determining what respondents thought GILS was. Question 1 on the survey asked respondents to provide their definition of GILS. This was an open-ended question and respondents provided a wide range of answers to the questions. Content analysis was performed on the data and the answers were grouped into four categories based on the primary features or aspects of GILS contained in the definitions:

Describing GILS from the perspective of its functions
Describing GILS from the perspective of the types of information comprising GILS
Describing GILS from the perspective of various potential users of GILS
Describing GILS from the perspective of the coverage of GILS.

Respondent definitions often addressed more than one feature or aspect.

Within each of these categories, the content analysis revealed additional details that were also coded and grouped. The following tables (Table E1-7 through E1-10) summarize the results of the content analysis on the data provided in Question 1. For each table, the percentage of respondents describing that perspective on GILS is given.

Table E1-7
Definition of GILS -- Functions

84% of respondents’ definitions characterized GILS in terms of its function(s):

Table E1-7 Definition of GILS -- Functions
Type of Function	N	%
Finding Aid	97	64%
Access	47	31%
IRM	4	3%
Collect	3	2%
Control	1	1%
TOTAL	152	99%*

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

The specific "functions" categories were defined based on the occurrence of words in the respondents’ definitions:

Finding Aid -- defined by words such as "card catalog," "index," "pointers," etc.
Access -- defined by words such as "provide access to," "retrieve information," etc.
IRM -- defined by words such as "managing resources," "records management," etc.
Collect -- defined by words such as "agencies ‘collect’ information via GILS"
Control -- defined by words such as "agencies ‘control’ information via GILS."

Table E1-8
Type of Information in GILS

38% of respondents’ definitions characterized GILS in terms of the type(s) of information it comprises:

Type of Information	N	%
Publications	18	26%
Resources	18	26%
Systems	12	17%
Records	16	23%
Services	5	7%
TOTAL	69	99%*

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Table E1-9
Users of GILS

24% of respondent definitions characterized GILS in terms of the type of user(s):

Type of Users	N	%
Public	32	74%
Agency	4	9%
Private	2	5%
Government	1	2%
Library	1	2%
Managers	1	2%
Researchers	1	2%
World	1	2%
TOTAL	43	98%*

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Table E1-10
GILS Coverage

13% of respondent definitions characterized GILS in terms of its coverage:

Coverage	N	%
Federal government information (no qualifier mentioned)	7	29%
Important/major/prime information	4	17%
Executive information	1	4%
Electronic information	1	4%
Useful information	1	4%
Other	10	42%
TOTAL	24	100%

The category of "Other" in Table E1-10 includes the following limitations to GILS coverage:

A basic replacement and improvement to requesting information from Pueblo, CO -- you can find all agencies with information on topic
[primary] systems of records
Certain federal holdings
Information federal agencies choose to make available
Government services policy procedures information
Public records to patrons of the service
Records federal agencies are creating
Technical knowledge gained through research
All of IRS systems
Information for govt. agencies to complete daily duties

Additionally, seven (7) respondents indicated some aspect of GILS related to its centralization (2) or decentralization (5). Five (5) respondents mentioned standards including two (2) respondents specifically mentioned Z39.50.

Other responses were difficult to categorize, but contain interesting and sometime quite honest comments about GILS:

A concise instrument to facilitate the use of government information
Networked magic black box for finding universal government information
Providing information to private agency, schools, etc., on data related to that agency, company, etc.
Roadsigns identifying communities of interest on the information highway
This is my first GILS conference. I was not given any background on GILS
Wish I knew.

Overall, the answers to this question reveal a wide diversity in how people currently understand and are able to define GILS. Two key aspects of GILS does come through in the answers -- that its "users" are considered to be "public users," and its primary characteristic is as a "finding aid."

3.3. Assessment of Key Issues

As noted in the introduction, the primary purpose of this survey was to get input for the study on issues related to GILS. The researchers identified through the literature review, early data collection activities, and discussions with people knowledgeable about GILS a set of statements that reflected a preliminary list of issues related to GILS. Respondents were asked to state their agreement/disagreement with thirteen (13) statements and true or false for four (4) statements. Table E1-11 summarizes the data from the thirteen 13 statements. For those statements, respondents could choose on a five-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Agree and 5 = Strongly Disagree) or make the choice "Don’t Know" (D/K). Table E1-12 collapses cells for 1 and 2 together and for cells 4 and 5 together to indicate more general senses of agreement/disagreement with the statements. Table E1-13 summarizes the data from the true/false statements.

Table E1-11
Key Issues

	1		2		3		4		5		D/K		Blank		Total
Key Issue	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%*
A purpose of GILS is to improve public access to government information	128	71	33	18	14	8	0	0	2	1	4	2	0	0	181	100
Every agency Web homepage should have a link to the agency’s GILS	97	54	46	25	15	8	2	1	3	2	15	8	3	2	181	100
GILS should be expanded through out the Federal government	73	40	43	24	24	13	5	3	5	3	25	14	6	3	181	100
A purpose of GILS is to help agency officials better manage agency information	51	28	49	27	32	18	19	10	10	6	16	9	4	2	181	100
More work needs to be done on the technical standards to support GILS operations	43	24	39	22	31	17	10	6	2	1	50	27	6	3	181	100
I am able to describe GILS accurately and fully to others	37	20	44	24	53	29	19	10	20	11	3	2	5	3	181	99
GILS has improved public access to Federal information	32	18	31	17	40	22	18	10	3	2	52	29	5	3	181	101
GILS is so valuable that, if it didn’t exist, we would have to create it	23	13	34	19	50	28	30	17	11	6	27	15	6	3	181	101
There is adequate policy guidance to direct the development and operation of GILS	12	7	27	15	46	25	34	19	12	7	43	24	7	4	181	101
The appropriate technology is readily available for implementing GILS	11	6	32	18	48	27	20	11	13	7	50	27	7	4	181	100
There is adequate technical implementation guidance for development and operating GILS	9	5	27	15	47	26	28	15	17	9	49	27	4	2	181	99
The World Wide Web reduces the need for GILS	9	5	20	11	28	15	49	27	39	22	29	16	7	4	181	100
GILS records represent the complete information resources of an agency	7	4	5	3	20	11	53	29	69	38	22	12	5	3	181	100

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Table E1-12
Key Issues (Reduced)

	Agree		3		Disagree		Blank		D/K		Total
Key Issue	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%*
A purpose of GILS is to improve public access to government information	161	89	14	8	2	1	4	2	0	0	181	100
Every agency Web homepage should have a link to the agency’s GILS	143	79	15	8	5	4	15	8	3	2	181	101
GILS should be expanded through out the Federal government	116	64	24	13	10	6	25	14	6	3	181	100
A purpose of GILS is to help agency officials better manage agency information	100	55	32	18	29	16	16	9	4	2	181	100
More work needs to be done on the technical standards to support GILS operations	82	45	31	17	12	7	50	28	6	3	181	100
I am able to describe GILS accurately and fully to others	81	45	53	29	39	22	3	2	5	3	181	101
GILS has improved public access to Federal information	63	35	40	22	21	12	52	29	5	3	181	101
GILS is so valuable that, if it didn’t exist, we would have to create it	57	31	50	28	28	23	27	15	6	3	181	100
The appropriate technology is readily available for implementing GILS	43	24	48	27	33	18	50	27	7	4	181	100
There is adequate policy guidance to direct the development and operation of GILS	39	22	46	25	46	25	43	24	7	4	181	100
There is adequate technical implementation guidance for development and operating GILS	36	20	47	26	45	25	49	27	4	2	181	100
The World Wide Web reduces the need for GILS	29	16	28	15	88	49	29	16	7	4	181	100
GILS records represent the complete information resources of an agency	12	7	20	11	122	67	22	12	5	3	181	100

* Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Questions 22 - 25 asked respondents about their use of GILS. Respondents marked True or False for their answers to these questions. Table E1-13 summarizes responses to these questions.

Table E1-13
Use of GILS

	True		False		Total
Use of GILS	N	%	N	%	N	%
I find useful information when I use GILS	84	46%	97	54%	181	100%
I often find links to GILS on the Web	53	29%	128	71%	181	100%
I often refer people to GILS when providing information	48	27%	133	73%	181	100%
I search GILS several times per day in my everyday work	6	3%	175	97%	181	100%

A large majority of respondents neither use GILS frequently nor do they refer people to GILS for finding information. A smaller majority (54%) do not find useful information when using GILS. Responses to these questions raise the question as to the utility people currently see GILS as providing.

Alternatives to GILS

Along with the questions related to what users think about GILS as reflected in answers to questions 22-25, another question (Question 8) asked users to identify their favorite online alternative (either Web-based or other) to GILS they use when trying to locate government information. This was an open-ended questions, and respondents answered ranged from "The Web" to specific "agency homepages" or agency locators such as "GPO Access." While many respondents noted more than one alternative, only the first listed was counted in Table E1-14, which shows a summary of responses to Question 8. A second part to Question 8 asked respondents to provide reasons why they liked the source listed in Question 8. The intention was to identify salient features or aspects of those sources to provide a primitive sense of "user requirements" for changes to GILS. In general, and with some notable exceptions, the responses to the second part of the question were not useful for the intended purposes. Table E1-14 is a list of some of the more interesting features of these alternative sources.

Table E1-14
Favorite Online Alternative to GILS

Alternative Online Resource	N	%
Web	32	18%
Alta Vista	14	8%
Agency Homepage(s) (includes DefenseLink)	13	7%
GPO Access	11	6%
None**	7	4%
Fedworld	6	3%
Yahoo!	6	3%
No Access**	5	3%
White House website	4	2%
(unspecified) Search engine	4	2%
GPO Monthly Catalog	3	2%
Library of Congress (includes Thomas)	3	2%
Villanova	3	2%
Lexis/Nexis	2	1%
Lycos	2	1%
Netscape	2	1%
Webcrawler	2	1%
EPIC	1	1%
Excite	1	1%
Gopher	1	1%
Library	1	1%
metacrawler.cs.washington.edu	1	1%
Mosaic	1	1%
Nonprofit Advisor	1	1%
NSDI/FGDC	1	1%
Telnet	1	1%
Usenet	1	1%
WWW.strategics.ca	1	1%
Blank	51	28%
Totals	181	105%*

*Total does not equal 100 due to rounding.
**"None" includes responses such as "don’t use" and "not familiar with any"; "no access" includes responses such as "not available" and "we’re not online".

Respondents noted the following reasons for favoring the GILS alternatives listed in Table E1-14:

Ease of use

Access to multiple/a variety of official databases

Currentness

Pointers to nearest library

Helpful user's guide

Extensive index

Absence of advertising

Speed

Amount of information provided

Clear organization

Convenience/familiarity/lack of knowing alternatives

Keyword search capability

Comprehensiveness

Breadth/depth of subject matter

Support

Links to other government agencies/resources

Seeing a "better perspective (context) of" information

Size

Relevance of information retrieved

Synergy

Personal involvement in development/maintenance

Target audience

Standardization

Ability to search by document title

Variety of approaches to information organization

Wide availability

Graphics development and presentation

Efficiency

Intuitiveness

Support of libraries, public information , and preservation

Predictability

Results are clear

Simplicity

Familiarity

Support by federal agencies

Degree of organization

Definitiveness

Capable of complex searching

Interface

Solid data

Script-ability to allow access for other programs.

An important design question for GILS is whether GILS can be modified to address and accomplish these criteria and expectations of users.

3.4. Additional Comments Provided by Respondents

The survey included a final question (Question 26) that asked respondents to offer any additional comments, pose questions, identify key issues, or discuss topics not mentioned in the questionnaire. The intention of this question was to probe for respondents’ ideas that the GILS Team would consider in subsequent data collection activities.

This was an open-ended question, and respondents provided a wide range of responses. A preliminary categorization placed the questions into several broad groups:

Questions and Issues
Complaints and Concerns
Recommendations
General
"Here to Learn"

3.4.1. "Questions and Issues" Responses

Where will the ""front door"" be for the federal GILS?
How important is z39.50 to implementation of GILS? Doesn't web circumvent need for that protocol?
I find a void in clearly articulated description of what GILS is, what my responsibilities are, and how we are to implement GILS.
Questions: in this age of diminished resources, my agency cannot afford automation systems or personnel to perform mission related [to] automation support. In this environment of exceptionally constrained resources ($) how can the agency afford another ""unfunded mandate""? How does the agency choose which ""unfunded mandate"" to comply with?" Is this truly the wisest use of our dollars? Isn't it GILS (etc.) Versus mission accomplishment!
DOD GILS: we are directed by OSD, PAIGE to use DTIC as our vehicle to put our records out to the GILS which they carry out very well but we (including DTIC) have been directed to use the DIST [D.I.S.T.]. Nice easy step for DTIC but inaccurate data is put out to GILS because of this nice and easy step. #19 [web reduces need for GILS] I answered strongly agree but another [question could be] if not directed to have put out the GILS info would your agency have done this on their own?
Relationship between GILS and NTIS FEDRIP (federal database of R&D research in progress). Relationship between GILS and critical technologies institute (CTI) funded by OSTP database of government R&D. Radius (R&D in the U.S. government). How differ?
Relationship of state-level GILS with federal GILS?
I was assigned to be the creator of GILS records for our agency. However, I still do not fully understand how it should be created. For instance, if an agency has much of or the majority of the its information that is requested by the public on the Internet: is it feasible to conclude that the homepage of the WWW would meet the GILS requirement?
Issue: what are personal incentives for maintaining & for using GILS?
Should there be a single web site for federal government information? Why do GILS records have to comply with z39.50 and FIPS 192? Does the public care?
How can we capitalize on z39.50 base and link U.S. fed. GILS records to huge base of library catalogs? How can we make sense of the z39.50 thing?
The application of EDMS technology to GILS core elements- especially as vendors tackle the use of z39.50 with their products - meta data, search engines, profiles, etc.
1. What is the degree of adherence to GILS within the fed. Govt.? 2. What is the commitment within depts & agencies? 3. Is z39.50 being used at all or are GILS sites primarily web-based? 4. What is being done to promote GILS when depts and to the public? 5. Do depts. Use guidelines to determine which inform. Resources to describe in a GILS record? 6. What are the obstacles to GILS implementation? 7. What is the status of GILS in other natl gov'ts? 8. How can Netscape catalog server be used to support GILS?
We have heard about GILS becoming global. I'm more interested in how GILS will be adapted at state and local level, even by non-governmental entities. To what degree is GILS not the WWW? (re question 19)
Key issue: identifying potential customers, not just current users. Who uses GILS besides agencies & federal depository librarians?
Issue: keeping the GILS info current, accurate, up-to-date
How to begin to establish a state GILS. How does one decide which agencies to approach to describe their info resources & put them online?
Discussions of implementing GILS in our state government yielded a variety of responses, to wit: yes, it's necessary, but is the federal model one to emulate? Libraries asked whether GILS records could be MARC records; there were questions of how to collect GILS info (centralized or delegated), and how best to capture subject access to government info holdings (LCSH or just let the agencies do it?). These are not roadblocks, but represent some of the obstacles GILS needs to overcome.
Getting greater commitment within agencies for GILS - resources needed - support by agency heads as a priority activity.
Key issue: procedures for maintaining improvements to online record development & maintenance.
Effective date of FIPS PUB 192? NARA guidelines on mandatory fields - is this info available?

3.4.2. "Complaints and Concerns" Responses

The quality of GILS varies widely from agencies to agencies.
Hope some of the GILS will be linked to the actual document in some way -- hope less technical descriptions. -- some are just doc #s which do not make sense to lay persons.
Access to one of a kind archival information.
Volume provides cost effective indexing [for archival information].
Links to document management systems.
The naming, meaning, and organization of most of the GILS records fields are much too obtuse for the casual user (and not record submitters). Currently, we have found this to be our biggest handicap to acquiring new records.
I have never been able to locate a resource to advise on how to implement GILS. Our agency submitted a requisition to GPO to put up our system of records. GPO has never billed us and when we inquired, we aren't able to locate anyone in GPO who knew anything about GILS. Our customer service rep at GPO could not help either.
GILS is being shoe-horned into/used for purposes that are totally inappropriate - records disposition. GILS is either about important govt information, or it isn't.
1) I am concerned that there are several initiatives (such as GILS & FGDC) that are duplicating efforts (or at least having that functional result) in storing govt info. 2) I am concerned that storing data in GILS is a separate activity, hence adding to workload. Data (including meta data) needs to be gathered and stored at a single point, as a result of the initial data collection/storage activity(s). In other words, the capture and storage needs to be automated as an offshoot of the primary activity. 3) the level of the records I’ve seen is so high it's almost meaningless.
There is no way for a member of the public to search across all GILS records. How can a member of the public find an agency's GILS records?
1. While the process of coding GILS elements is structured, the penetration of GILS into the whole population of information is not controlled. 2. Dependence upon keyword improves precision, but not recall. As more general employees assist with coding GILS entries, the variety of cataloging terms destabilizes accuracy.
1) agency politics among different program areas has been roadblock in implementing GILS.
Requirements to put expensive publications on GILS concerns many employees in our office. We do not have the staffing to hire people to handle new requests, but we also don't have the equipment to put all this info (publications) online.
Too much effort into policy, not enough into the technology
A problem for some agencies is that the necessary GILS people have no web links because of budget constraints.
The value of GILS is minimal because the descriptions do not always accurately reflect the information available. In most cases, you cannot determine if the publication/information referenced is indeed what I want. The records management capabilities are nonexistent. This aspect of GILS needs to be re-thought. The national archives is not ready to accept GILS records in lieu of a schedule. In addition, the GILS record does not provide the information needed by NARA to appraise records--therefore generating more paperwork.
I think the WWW is a far superior way to get federal info. GILS is just more bureaucratic red tape.
Conflict between privacy act notice requirements and duplicate/different GILS requirements still avoided & unresolved. Ditto conflict between NARA scheduling & RM paperwork & process requirements v. GILS requirements - differing levels of GILS entries inconsistent & confusing. Scarce agency resources now devoted to trying to maintain & reconcile duplicate information management databases. Implications of EFOIA uncertain despite Katzen's rosy glow.
The strong tendency in federal agencies to move slowly toward web access for their info (whether or not they provide links to their GILS). The extreme level of aggregation of records. The lack of ability to search easily/transparently across agencies. The lack of a search thesaurus. The lack of access to what is pointed to (esp. As concerns numeric databases) for the most part. The lack of vision (forward or peripheral) from OMB, the admin.
Examine how OMB placed the requirement, and how that affected agencies implementations. If GILS is so important, where are the resources ($, information, tools) that should have been made available? Another strategy other than an OMB bulletin might have had a different effect/outcome.
My agency's IRM staff locks out the records creator and either takes over the final stage of the project, or deems the information project non-helpful, and torpedoes years of information gathering
Most users who I come in contact with are very intimidated by GILS because it is very foreign to them -- at times ""too formal."" They are not aware of the value of this service. I also think there needs to be a [single] place to go to get GILS records. Not having one place to find GILS records is very rough on users.
When will OMB recognize & provide reasonable resources for GILS implementation, maintenance, and improvement?
GILS--not user friendly. Hard to search. Explain how to search - i.e., privacy act systems of records.
Perceived redundancy w/ NSDI/FGDC is a major stumbling block to GILS acceptance
Costs & impact on small agencies without staff or resources to meet unfunded mandates. Guidance on protection of classified, client privileged information as relates to GILS and addition of records schedules/disposition. Difficult to get to specific sources, often get irrelevant data, search sources don't lend themselves to precise retrieval of information.
Speaking as a citizen, client, customer, and subject (see Mintzberg's article on ""governing"" HBR, 1996, management…) I regret saying that the "bloom is off the rose."" GILS sucks. It should meet the real world. Z39.50 is snake oil.

3.4.3. "Recommendation" Responses

Library established standards should be used for GILS.
Would like more information on use of GILS for records management.
Greater awareness of GILS needed.
Compare/contrast GILS vs. GPO MOCAT. Legislation should be enacted to develop GILS for legislative and judicial branches of government. Improved guidance to agencies is necessary; tying GILS to agency mission/dissemination.
Intergovernmental cooperation - federal, state, local participation [and] coordination in disseminating public records/information. OMB as a record management tool.
Can we work on integrating historical information and older publications with pointers to source (i.e., dept. Libraries, NARA, NTIS)? Can we work on expanding GPO Access or other source to a government web page with pointers to each agency - include judicial with congressional and executive branches? What about education packets for DIST. To school labs on using GILS.
Never thought I’d say this but can't someone write a GILS how-to-do-it manual in plain English to take away much of the mystery?
How do you explain GILS to upper level politicians & policy makers?
It would seem that a natural step for GILS would be a migration to a www/x.500 platform for GILS.
Need to ensure that multicultural perspective is built into the design of GILS - also diversity in terms of educational level, age, groups, etc.
OMB meta data should be used in developing an electronic records keeping system for consistency throughout govt.
OMB doesn't seem to be a priority within my agency. I'm struggling with trying to educate my management in this area. My agency seems to be more enamored with technology rather than using the technology as a tool to disseminate information. I would like to see OMB & NARA being more proactive with educating agencies. I would also like to see OMB & NARA request implementation plans from agencies. Maybe this will jump start the effort.
Need better direction to department and agency heads
Need more universal compliance w/ standards, level of records. Need more easy access to records & provide html links to actual resources available electronically. More agencies need to use as record management tool. (complete).
Normalize GILS data fields
OMB input should be updated in a timely fashion. OMB input should be done once with no [conversion?] Needed. OMB needs to prevent privacy act violations.
Develop hot links from records to data - MARC 856
#16 [homepage link to GILS], vice versa is even more important; if the resource is out on the web page, there should be a hotlink from the corresponding GILS record.

3.4.4. "General" Responses

It is positive that so many agencies are using the government printing office to fulfill their GILS obligations.
Don't have access to Internet and other agencies GILS topics. Also, I really never comprehended purpose of GILS.
I think that some of the info on GILS may be elsewhere on web.
Lists of lists are basically useless. We need actual information, but providing this is costly- if agencies don't commit budget and people resources, GILS will be at best half-baked. Customers will always take the easiest route to information, which is to call up a human being who will track the info for them.
GILS v. Web. There are valid arguments on both sides. The web seems to be infinitely more democratic. I wonder if GILS' time hasn't already come and gone.
GILS will never be what it should be until all federal agencies are using EDMS software to capture documents and meta data through out their life cycles. When that occurs, and only then, will agencies be able to make information readily available to the public in whatever form they want it. Only then will the vision of GILS be realized.
This questionnaire seems geared toward federal employees who use the federal GILS. I am not in that category, so I am not sure how useful my responses will be to you. #11 [adequate policy guidance]: whose GILS? Yours? Or my potential GILS?
I believe the more important future of GILS relates to the management of information as opposed to the location or access to information. The web appears to be more functional for those purposes.
FOIA interface. Legal/ethical issues. Information integrity/security. Information updates. Timeliness of information. Empowerment vs. Elimination of employees. Training initiatives. I am very interested in participating in a focus group [on] FOIA/policy analysis--assessing online GILS usage. Marcia Krug: w-(300) 413-0610, h-(300) 924-5104. Call me!
As an information specialist in a government agency, I increasingly refer users to GILS.
I think that homepage links may be useful, but often may be a big time/ bandwidth waster. If standards for relevance & completeness of access were developed and enforced, then GILS links to homepages could be useful. Content rules!
Regarding #17 [improved public access], I'd say GILS will; I doubt it has, yet. Re: #22-25, I'm an old fogey who hasn't yet touched the web. Don't judge by me!

3.4.5. "Here To Learn" Responses

I am not a GILS. Attendance at this conference will greatly educate me on the purpose and use of GILS.
I would like to be involved in implementing GILS for my agency (Air Force)
I am here to learn about GILS.
Up until today I have not used GILS but plan to explore it when I return to my office. It sounds great!
#22-#24 [search GILS several times per day, refer people, find useful info], not very familiar with GILS. My purpose here is to find out more info about it and how to access it.
Its not very easy for me to honestly complete this survey because I really am not familiar w/ GILS, except that it is a Govt. Info. Locator service. I can only guess at some of these questions.
A year and a half ago, I was asked to prepare a GILS record for my agency. It was duly sent up some chain of command, no doubt into integrated with others within our department (HHS) and I never heard another thing about it or GILS. I am a frequent user of the WWW and have some responsibilities for creating and maintaining our extensive website - which is hugely successful and much accessed. So what is the relationship of all this with GILS? I came to this conference primarily out of curiosity--because of my experience 1 1/2 years ago.
I don't use GILS so don't count these answers. I have not been an active participant during the early work on my state GILS project; thus this conference is an introduction for me before I join the team during the prototype phase. Thus I think my answers should be discarded and not included in the results.
I have not used GILS yet.
I'm new at this, so I haven't used GILS yet.
I have come to this conference representing the Australian government. In one of the reports prepared we recommended that Australia adopt a model based on GILS in order to provide access to govt info. I would like to keep in touch with you
In process of finding out about GILS.
I have not knowledge of GILS, whatsoever. I was told to attend this conference on Tuesday, in the place of my supervisor.

Next Appendix
Previous Appendix
Table of Contents