Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
OCR for page 11
OCR for page 12
OCR for page 13
OCR for page 14
OCR for page 15
OCR for page 16
OCR for page 17
Representative terms from entire chapter:
government services
Page 10
2
Government Services Information Infrastructure Management
Robert J. Aiken and John S.
Cavallini
U.S. Department of Energy
Abstract
The growth and deployment of the Government Services Information
Infrastructure (GSII), and its relationship with the national
information infrastructure (NII), will require the federal
government to drastically change the way it acquires and deploys
telecommunications for support of the government's businesses. The
GSII is an enlightened attempt by the Clinton/Gore Administration
to form a "virtual government" crossing agency boundaries to
interact more closely with industry and with the public, as well as
with state and local government, to greatly improve the delivery of
government services. The GSII is that portion of the NII used to
link government and its services, enable virtual agency concepts,
protect privacy, and support emergency preparedness needs. The GSII
will have to be an integral component of the NII in order to do so.
The GSII and other private sector efforts will have a significant
impact on the design, development, and deployment of the NII, even
if only through the procurement of such services.
This paper concludes that the federal government must adopt new
mechanisms and new paradigms for the management of the GSII,
including improved acquisition and operation of GSII components in
order to maximize taxpayer benefits, to optimize the delivery of
government services, to ensure that the GSII is an integral
component of the NII, and to adopt industry standards rather than
setting them. Government requirements and applications, as well as
the available technologies to address those requirements, will
continue to evolve; therefore so must the government's use of
technologies and services. The requirements from federal government
services and the users of these services logically form affinity
groups that more accurately and effectively define these common
requirements, that drive the adoption and use of industry
standards, and that provide a significant technology marketplace to
capture the vision of the NII both now and in the future.
It is critically important that the federal government adopt a
management scheme that improves its ability to work with U.S.
industry to ride the coming Third Wave,1 as opposed to being wiped out by it.
A new management scheme is also needed to improve cooperation
between the government and its partners (i.e., the private sector,
academia, and state and local governments) and to improve the
chances for a successful deployment of both the GSII and NII. This
new management scheme must be built upon a modular and evolutionary
approach for the GSII as well as for other large systems
developments to greatly improve the successful use of information
technology (IT) by the government, especially to provide service to
the private sector and to the U.S. citizenry.
NOTE: This paper was commissioned by the
Government Information Technology Services (GITS) subcommittee of
the Committee on Applications and Technology of the Information
Infrastructure Task Force (IITF). It was drafted for the GITS by
John S. Cavallini and Robert J. Aiken of the Department of Energy.
It was reviewed and endorsed for submission to the NII 2000 Forum
by the GITS membership.
Page 11
Background
Today, the private sector is developing and deploying
information infrastructure. At the same time, the government is
concurrently developing and deploying information infrastructure,
mostly through contracts with the private sector. Under the lead of
and at the encouragement of the Clinton/Gore Administration, the
federal government has placed increased emphasis on the development
and deployment of an NII as a strategic priority. This emphasis
results from the understanding that properly leveraged information
and information technology are among the nation's most critical
economic resources, for manufacturing industries as well as for
more modern services industries for economic security and for
national security.
The Clinton/Gore Administration has made a commitment to work
with business, labor, academia, public interest groups, Congress,
and both state and local government to ensure the development of an
NII that enables all Americans to access information and
communicate with each other using combinations of voice, data,
images, or video at anytime, anywhere.2 This commitment was articulated very
well by the National Performance Review (NPR) through its emphasis
on using IT as a key element in creating a government that works
better and costs less.3 The
President and Vice President recognize the need to use IT to
improve Americans' quality of life and to reinvigorate the economy.
To this end, they outlined a three-part agenda for spreading IT's
benefits to the federal government: (1) strengthen leadership in
IT, (2) implement electronic government, and (3) establish support
mechanisms for electronic government. Thirteen major IT areas were
identified for accomplishing the three-part agenda:
1.
Provide clear, strong leadership to integrate IT
into the business of government;
2.
Implement nationwide, integrated electronic
benefit transfer;
3.
Develop integrated electronic access to government
information and services;
4.
Establish a national law enforcement/public safety
network;
5.
Provide intergovernmental tax filing, reporting,
and payments processing;
6.
Establish an international trade data system;
7.
Create a national environmental data index;
8.
Plan, demonstrate, and provide government-wide
electronic mail;
9.
Improve government's information
infrastructure;
10.
Develop systems and mechanisms to ensure privacy
and security;
11.
Improve methods of IT acquisition;
12.
Provide incentives for innovation; and
13.
Provide training and technical assistance in IT to
federal employees.
Development of an NII is not an end goal in or of itself.
Government requires an infrastructure to conduct its business more
effectively and to deliver services to the American citizenry at
lower cost to the taxpayers. A number of suitable national-scale
applications or uses of the NII have been identified and documented
by the IITF's Committee on Applications and Technology.4 These uses of the NII, in addition to
nationwide humanistic applications such as health care and
education, include the fundamental businesses or enterprises of the
federal government such as law enforcement, electronic commerce
(including benefits), basic research, environment, health care, and
national security, and as such represent a significant set of
driving requirements for NII deployment.
In recognizing this fact, the NPR concluded that the government
use of IT and development of information infrastructure should be
improved and better coordinated in order to effectively address
government business requirements. The NPR made approximately 60
recommendations for action in this regard, including the
development of a plan for a GSII to electronically deliver
government services and to integrate electronic access to
government-provided information and services. The GSII is that
portion of the NII used to link government and its services, enable
virtual agency concepts, protect privacy, and support emergency
preparedness needs. It was also recognized that better integration
and coordination were required not only across federal
government
Page 12
agencies, but also across federal and state governments, and
local and tribal governments, to the private sector and to the
public at large.
To achieve these goals, the Vice President established the GITS
working group in December 1993. The mission of the GITS working
group is to promote the improvement of agency performance through
the use of IT, accelerate the deployment of advanced networking
technologies, and in conjunction with the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration (GSA), establish
procurement and implementation policies, practices, and directives
designed to improve productivity and reduce costs. The working
group's responsibilities include implementing the NPR's
recommendations, coordinating federal agency and White House
initiatives for evolving the NII, and enhancing cross-agency IT
collaborations as well as government and industry IT
activities.
The GSII: Analysis
The GSII is that portion of the NII used to link government and
its services, enable "virtual agency" concepts, protect privacy,
and support emergency preparedness needs. The "virtual agency
concept" allows services and functions to cross traditional
organizational and geographic boundaries. For example, a U.S.
citizen could, in this fashion, receive multiple services such as
social security, food stamps, tax preparation assistance,
information on the national park system, and so on through a single
interaction with one agency.
The attributes of an effective GSII must include timely infusion
of appropriate IT to meet requirements; coordination of
infrastructure across government requirements and with the private
sector; effectiveness, while also allowing for innovation and
flexibility to meet specific needs; information surety to guard
citizens' rights and privacy while also providing for national
security needs; cost-effectiveness of IT acquisition and
development while also encouraging a competitive technological
environment; ubiquitous accessibility to all citizens, including
those with disabilities; ease of use for locating government
information or for service delivery; transparent (to the user)
integration of the GSII portion of the NII with the rest of the
Internet, NII, and the global information infrastructure; shared
resource use across government entities; and the mechanisms,
processes, and procedures to appropriately manage such a diverse
infrastructure.
As opposed to the open system interconnect seven-layer model,
information infrastructure is more often currently viewed as having
three or four layers; a recent report of the National Research
Council (Realizing the Information Future) proposes a
standard open bearer service to promote, and perhaps maximize,
interoperability across the NII.5
This is a significant feature that the GSII must adopt and
integrate as it evolves. Nevertheless, merely focusing on the NII
layer concept and other technical models can lead one to neglect
two of the most important components of the GSII and the NII. They
are people, both using and providing services over the NII, and the
coordination mechanisms needed to effectively manage all GSII
activities and efforts.
Standards are often cited as the only way to achieve
interoperability across the NII or GSII. However, standards can
often be too much of a good thing.6
The technology life cycle averages 12 to 18 months, with new
hardware and software being introduced at a dizzying pace. The
current standards processes have not been able to keep up.
Competition among many vendors is crucial for reducing cost as well
as ensuring a viable "technological gene pool" for both current and
future requirements. Innovation requires new concepts. Flexibility
is required to meet a wide and diverse set of special requirements
and can enable the incremental evolution of the GSII and NII in a
stepwise manner. Large systems development must be modular and
better coordinated. Today's infrastructure has an enormous amount
of different components composed of various technologies and
standards. Therefore, a modular, seamless integration and evolution
of the multicomponent GSII into the evolving NII will need to be
based primarily on voluntary processes and proven interoperability
solutions rather than on mandated standards. These and many more
facts lead us to the conclusion that standards alone are not
sufficient.
Furthermore, although the Internet protocol suite was originally
developed as a military specification, it was not adopted as a
federal procurement standard or an industry standard. Nevertheless,
through versatility and capability to meet the research community's
requirements, while supporting a productive range of
interoperability, the Internet Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP)/Internet Protocol (IP) became the most widely used
Page 13
internetworking protocol. Therefore, common requirements and
mutually beneficial, modular, evolutionary technical solution(s)
will provide the best gauge of the range of interoperability that
is ultimately needed.
Current federal coordination mechanisms are a result of the
Brooks ADP Act of 1965 which was passed in an era characterized by
mainframe computers when time-shared processing was the primary
technique for managing scarce IT resources. Reflecting the
centralized technology, the decisional and oversight responsibility
for planning, acquiring, and managing IT was taken from the heads
of the various executive agencies and vested in the administrator
for general services. The theory was that investments in IT must be
centrally managed and that only a dedicated cadre of IT
professionals could perform the function.
Over the years, the original model eroded and technology became
decentralized. Today, agencies plan and manage their own IT
investments; the authority to contract for or to procure IT
solutions is "delegated" to the agency heads. As a condition of the
delegation, agencies are subject to an additional, centralized
acquisition and management oversight. That oversight, however, is
generally redundant in nature (i.e., oversight checkers outside an
agency are checking internal oversight checkers) and neither set of
checkers possesses the institutional expertise or the resources to
adequately understand, let alone manage, the government's
increasingly decentralized and diverse IT infrastructure.
Ultimately, the centralized control model of the Brooks Act, which
reduced both the responsibility and the authority of the heads of
federal agencies, contributed to significant failures in IT
management and seriously misspent resources.
The old centralized approach could achieve interoperability
neither across the government infrastructure nor with the private
sector, and it was even counterproductive in efforts to do so. In
the future, an NII will undoubtedly incorporate multiple paradigms
of internetworking, interoperability, and communications, thus
making the task of coordination and interoperability even more
difficult. Logically then, the question is how to promote
interoperability. We propose starting with what the GSII will be
used for—the business functions that can be considered GSII
applications—and with those people who share common interests
in both using and providing the GSII. The applications should
determine what standards and technologies are required and will
provide interoperability among their own constituency as well as
with other groups, if properly coordinated.
It should be noted, however, that GSA has taken steps to try to
improve the government's acquisition of IT and to recognize this
new paradigm of distributed IT functionality and management. Two
notable examples are the Time Out Program that tries to get
faltering large-systems efforts back on track and the
Government-wide Acquisitions Contracts Program that empowers lead
agencies to conduct multiagency contracts.
Applications and Affinity Groups
Government services and uses of the NII for law enforcement,
benefits, and health care touch every community. Requirements for
research, the environment, and national security go beyond the
geographic requirements. The latter also require advances in the
state-of-the-art, leading-edge IT capabilities. Hence, government
applications provide significant financial leverage and incentive
for NII deployment, as well as for new IT development. If one adds
applications for education, generic electronic commerce, and energy
delivery and management to this set of federal NII applications,
the cost leveraging for deploying the NII becomes significant. For
example, in energy, "[e]lectric utilities already serve over 95
percent of American homes (a percentage point above telephone
companies)" with the "likely requirement that all these homes will
need access to advanced telecommunications to manage energy"
consumption.7 It is unlikely that
telecommunications for energy demand management will replace
conventional access mechanisms, especially for the last mile to
residences. However, the energy utilities telecommunications
infrastructure can augment, leverage, and enhance the cable and
telecommunications industry infrastructure and facilitate access to
the NII, and hence the GSII, for almost all Americans, including
those in remote rural areas.
In addition to the impact the energy utilities may have on the
NII, FTS 2000 and its successor will have a more direct impact on
both the NII and GSII, since it will be a major vehicle for
supplying telecommunications and services to the federal
government. Today's FTS 2000 "currently provides intercity
telecommunications for 1.7 million federal government users."8 Post-FTS 2000 is expected to go
beyond the current FTS 2000 by delivering intercity
telecommunications as well as value-added services such as
electronic mail, key management,
Page 14
teleconferencing, and more. This deployment will be an integral
component of the GSII and will use industry-provided services
almost exclusively, thereby leveraging the products of industry
rather than competing with them. However, this reliance on and use
of industry products and services will not lessen the impact that
the federal government, via procurement vehicles, will have on the
NII and GSII; therefore, the proper coordination of the deployment
and management of the GSII with respect to the NII is even more
critical.
The focus should be on achieving an effective, consultative, and
collegial interagency process for managing the GSII. This will
require creating a methodology for managing evolving IT policies,
priorities, and programs that provides and coordinates the
framework within which the mission, as well as the administrative,
IT requirements, and activities of individual federal departments
and agencies are conducted. The principal focus of the current
top-level IT management is on what today are perceived as the
common goals—mainly the administrative requirements for
finance, personnel, facilities, and so on—of the overall
enterprise called the federal government. Implementation of a new
enterprise model, based on an understanding of GSII requirements
driven by these other mission applications as well as those that
represent government services to its customers and their
non-government requirements, is essential to making the government
work better and cost less.
The Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel (FIRP), created
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the
request of the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific
Computing and the high-performance computing and communications
community, issued a report that recommends increased responsibility
for this shared infrastructure, such as a GSII, for the mission
areas of federal agencies or their logical affinity groups in as
compatible a way as practicable with the common vision of the
federal government.9 The term
"affinity group" means government agencies, or functional interest
groups therein, that share information electronically and have
common IT requirements. The NPR emphasized the need for improved
infrastructure for cross-agency groups. In addition, the FIRP
report recommended the development of affinity groups to enhance
cross-agency collaborations. Taken together, these factors make it
reasonable to require that each agency explicitly ensure that GSII
issues, including interoperability, are addressed not only within a
given federal agency, but also with external affinity groups,
industry, and the public, in which these agency mission or
"enterprise" activities take place.
The federal research community is an excellent example of an
affinity group. During the past decade, the federal research
community has placed a very high priority on the application of
advanced information technologies to enable advances in many
science disciplines. As experimentation becomes too expensive, too
unsafe, or too environmentally unsound, there is an increase in the
importance and value of computational experiments, collaborative
virtual reality, and distributed computing infrastructure
technologies for remote access to one-of-a-kind facilities, shared
data, and dispersed collaborations. Correspondingly, a sound and
capable NII is needed, since the research community crosses many
organizational boundaries, large geographical distances, and
multiple capability needs. By virtue of its use of advanced
capabilities, the research community or affinity group has
mobilized to coordinate requirements and to cooperate in their
solution.
Interagency, cooperative activities in the mid-1980s, prior to
the start of the High Performance Computing and Communications
Initiative (HPCCI), included studies to examine the need for common
infrastructure. These studies resulted in the development of the
National Research and Education Network component of the HPCCI,10 which proposed, and subsequently
implemented, Internet technologies to support the internetworking
needs of the research programs of the federal agencies. In one
notable case, the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) extended these
common affinity group requirements to include other administrative
requirements by implementing a multiprotocol network, installing
gateways for multiple e-mail systems, and so on. And although
technically different, the ESnet, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's Science Internet, the NSFNET, and the
ARPANET all were able to interoperate within an acceptable range
for the research community as separate, but integral, modules in a
network of networks. These activities and studies drew upon the
expertise and the involvement of many academic and industrial
researchers as well as organizations external to the federal
agencies, constituting a large affinity group and adding a large
user base to the Internet and establishing its technologies as a
viable and productive technology paradigm.
This success notwithstanding, the research community of each
agency also needs to interact electronically with other parts of
its own agency (e.g., using ESnet solutions for administration and
Information resource management), which are not normally a part of
the research affinity group, as well as with its affinity group
Page 15
colleagues. These requirements of the research community did not
always converge within the group (although convergence was
generally discussed and studied); however, convergence (and
ultimately interoperability) was even more problematic outside of
the research community.
Affinity groups do, however, represent a very powerful method
for identifying common requirements, coordinating infrastructure
needs, and promoting and maximizing interoperability of
applications and services across agency boundaries, extending these
''functional" areas as virtual agencies. Affinity groups can also
extend to industry and the private sector. Affinity groups could
establish a common perspective for evaluating new technologies,
eliminating unwarranted redundancies, interacting with various
affinity subgroups or working groups, and sharing data,
information, and knowledge about their enterprise or business area
and how IT promotes effectiveness. By focusing on common
requirements and solutions in this manner, affinity group
activities can result in application-driven standardization for
supporting important common functions, for setting priorities for
new tasks, and for understanding the minimum capabilities needed to
perform common business functions. They can also enhance the
overall coordination for multiorganizational, distributed
enterprises, as well as other attributes needed to maximize
coordination for multiagency, distributed government services
(i.e., the virtual agency) in the information future through the
GSII.
Optimizing GSII and NII
Compatibility
Federal IT management reform is needed to correct the current
problems with regard to managing IT in the federal government to
achieve a management scheme that works better. A new management
scheme should set up mechanisms to aid agencies in carrying out
their responsibilities, to evaluate agency IT investments via
performance measures of programmatic results and products, and to
promote both compatibility and interoperability across recognized
affinity groups. We propose the establishment of a high-level
"leadership council" that brings together recognized leaders of
larger or more critical mission-driven affinity groups along with
government and private sector IT services providers to:
1.
Promote cooperation among agencies by empowering
lead agencies to conduct more multiagency procurements, by
coordinating across affinity groups, and by seeking opportunities
for consolidation and cooperation, where appropriate;
2.
Set strategic direction and priorities for common
infrastructure services and to identify lead or executive agencies,
when appropriate, for procuring or providing common services;
3.
Oversee a government-wide IT innovation fund;
4.
Evaluate the work of agency activities through
"independent" or external technology review panels or committees;
and
5.
Make policy recommendations to OMB to improve
overall GSII effectiveness and to enhance coordination, such as
changes to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to increase private
sector involvement in GSII planning and decision making.
It should be noted that administrative functions for personnel,
finance, procurements, facilities management, and so on logically
combine the traditional federal information resource management
(IRM) organizations together into an affinity group. One could
conclude that this grouping results in a federal government
affinity group based on electronic commerce. Individual agencies
would still require policy and oversight function for IRM or IT
management activities; however, it is not envisioned that multiple
large centralized IRM organizations would or could promote GSII
interoperability goals (e.g., large redundant organizations both in
the GSA and in the agencies) or adequately serve the GSII goals and
objectives well into the information future.
Page 16
GSII Plan
Promoting interoperability, coordination, and information
exchange across agencies and affinity groups is of paramount
importance for achieving the goals of the NII and for creating an
evolving and successful GSII. The best means of achieving this goal
is through the use of the very same IT that will make the GSII
successful—in other words, use of the technologies that we
advocate for all agencies' businesses to further enhance the
management and oversight of the GSII. As an example, a very
important IT for furthering this goal is the World Wide Web (WWW),
which is a product of both the federal and international
high-energy physics community and also of the high-performance
computing and communications research communities.
The GITS working group has endorsed the use of the WWW to create
and maintain a "living" and "evolving" document accessible to all
over the net.11 The GITS working
group has the responsibility for implementing the NPR IT
recommendations, one of which is to develop a GSII plan.
Understanding the changing nature and the wide variety of GSII
components, elements, and layers, the GITS decided to create a
collaborative, on-line document on the WWW.12 The document consists of summarized
reports of various affinity groups, agencies, panels, committees,
and so on presenting the most current thinking with regard to GSII
technology direction, issues, applications and management. It
allows for interactive feedback and comment. All contributions will
be referred to a GITS subgroup and/or be addressed by other expert
groups.
On-line implementation plans, updates, and dialogue for the
GSII, as well as its committees, activities, documents, and plans,
will help to promote common understanding of issues and their
status as well as to establish the foundation for the discussion of
new ideas and/or requirements by government, industry, and the
public on both a national and international basis.
Federal Versus Nonfederal Issues for
the GSII
Some issues that need to be resolved for the deployment of the
NII result from the differences between policies, regulations, and
practices of the federal government versus those in the private
sector. It is timely that the Congress and the Administration are
now committed to telecommunications reform, as this will help lay
the foundation for resolving some of the GSII versus NII issues in
the future.
Key issues that need to be addressed for successful GSII and NII
integration include procurement reform, key and certificate
management infrastructure, electronic signature, intellectual
property, common carrier status and open access for the network and
information service providers, standards setting, and cost recovery
for shared infrastructures.
Recommendations
First, federal IT management reform is needed to deal with Third
Wave13 (i.e., truly information age)
organizations and business so that the federal government can, in
fact, achieve its NPR goal of creating a government that works
better and costs less.14
Second, the necessary features and mechanisms for achieving a
successful GSII should, at a minimum, include:
1.
Federal agency flexibility to meet mission
requirements in a cost-effective manner;
2.
Accountability based on technical success leading
to programmatic outcomes and enforced through the budget
process;
3.
Support for easy-to-use mechanisms for interagency
sharing of services and operations, including franchising,
cross-servicing, and multiple agency contracts;
4.
Provision of services/infrastructure as required
by communities of interest (e.g., affinity groups for government
business areas), by agencies, and by their customers;
Page 17
5.
Standards selected by affinity groups with
technical assistance and possible facilitation by the lead agency
or by the GITS working group;
6.
An interagency fund for innovative IT
programs;
7.
A ready source of expert, objective advice for
complex system acquisitions;
8.
Central collection of information, as needed, to
support government-wide priority setting, information sharing,
cross-agency and cross-affinity-group coordination, and
infrastructure investment optimization; and
9.
A fast, equitable way of handling contract
disputes.
Third, improvement in government and private sector cooperation
(e.g., via extended affinity groups) is required to achieve a more
timely acquisitions process; a more responsive standards process;
open-access interoperability between NII and GSII services
providers; and revision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) to provide relief for some activities with regard to the
GSII and NII to encourage rather than to discourage such
cooperation. The FACA can often discourage government activities
from utilizing academia, industry, and other private sector
organizations in developing priorities and goals for designing and
implementing the GSII and ensuring that the GSII is an integral
component of the NII.
Lastly, continued dialogue on the direction of development and
deployment of the GSII—especially relative to its superset,
the NII—via the WWW implementation of the GSII Plan, is needed
to ensure convergence of these two very important national
resources and to achieve the optimum "range of interoperability"
and the maximum benefit that one could expect from such a complex
and diverse infrastructure.
Notes
1. Toffler, Alvin. 1980. The Third
Wave. William Morrow & Company, New York, pp. 233, 262, and
404–415.
2. Information Infrastructure Task Force.
1993. The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for
Action. Information Infrastructure Task Force, Washington,
D.C., September 15.
3. Office of the Vice President. From
Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and
Costs Less. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
September.
4. Committee on Applications and
Technology (CAT), Information Infrastructure Task Force Committee.
1994a. Putting the Information Infrastructure to Work.
Information Infrastructure Task Force, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. Also, Committee on Applications and Technology
(CAT), Information Infrastructure Task Force. 1994b. The
Information Infrastructure: Reaching Society's Goals. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., September.
5. Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board, National Research Council. 1994. Realizing the
Information Future: The Internet and Beyond. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., May.
6. Aiken, R.J., and J.S. Cavallini. 1994.
"Standards: Too Much of a Good Thing?," Connexions—The
Interoperability Report 8(8) and ACM StandardView
2(2).
7. U.S. Department of Energy. 1993.
Positioning the Electric Utility to Build Information
Infrastructure. DOE/ER-0638, Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C., November.
8. Acquisition Working Group. 1994.
Analysis of POST-FTS2000 Acquisition Alternatives. Interagency
Management Council, Washington, D.C., September.
9. Federal Internetworking Requirements
Panel. 1994. Report of the Federal Internetworking Requirements
Panel. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Washington, D.C., May 31.
10. Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology, Office of Science and
Technology Policy. 1991. Grand Challenges: High Performance
Computing and Communications, The FY 92 U.S. Research and
Development Program. Committee on Physical, Mathematical, and
Engineering Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Washington, D.C., February 5.
11. GITS Working Group. 1994. Vision
for Government Information Technology Services and the NII.
GITS Working Group, Washington, D.C., July.
12. See
http://www.er.doe.gov/production/osc/gsiiplan.
13. Toffler, The Third Wave,
1980.
14. Gore, Albert. 1993. Creating a
Government That Works Better & Costs Less: Reengineering
Through Information Technology. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., September 1993.
