Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUMMARY OF GPO COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ENTITLED "REVIEW,
ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION OF CERTAIN AREAS AND FACETS OF
POLICIES, SYSTEMS, PROCESSES, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE" PREPARED BY COOPERS AND LYBRAND.

[blocks in formation]

GPO should consider appointing an Assistant Public Printer for Operations, thereby enabling the Deputy Public Printer to become more actively involved with the overall management of GPO.

Response:

The contractor apparently has taken a textbook approach that the Chief Executive Officer (Public Printer) and his deputy should not have specific line responsibilities. The contractor implies that because the Deputy Public Printer has specific line responsibilities, the Public Printer does not receive sufficient assistance to properly perform his duties. This is not so.

The present arrangement of duties and functions of the Deputy Public Printer does indeed allow sufficient time for him to assist the Public Printer in overall management of the Government Printing Office as well as time to manage the Operations functions of GPO. By the same token this arrangement grants the Public Printer enough resource time to attend to the "outside" activities referred to in the Report.

The Report fails to fully recognize that the organizational structure of Operations provides the Deputy Public Printer with managers for each of the four Departments who effectively manage the day-to-day activities of their respective areas of concern. This working arrangement allows ample time for the Deputy Public Printer to consult with the Assistant Public Printers on matters pertaining to overall Office matters and to assist and advise the Public Printer on policy matters for the entire Office. The addition of an Assistant Public Printer for Operations would only create an unnecessary expensive management position that could not contribute any more management expertise than now exists in the present organizational structure. In fact, an organization identical to the contractor's recommendation was used in the past in response to a similar recommendation. After about a three-year trial, there was unanimous agreement, led by the incumbent

of the Assistant Public Printer for Operations position that the organizational structure was not only a waste of valuable manpower, but also interfered with efficient operations. Consequently, there was a return to the present organizational structure in 1973 which empirical evidence has demonstrated to be the best for GPO.

Page 118

Recommendation:

There should be a study to determine the feasibility of merging the Printing Procurement Department and the Materials Management Service. The purpose of this project would be to determine if the consolidation of procurement activities would promote economies of scale, increased planning and control, and improved utilization of manpower.

Response:

A study of the feasibility of combining the Printing Procurement Department and Materials Management Service is not necessary since the two functions were combined for many years as the Purchasing Division and there already is sufficient empirical data to evaluate the proposition. Although both are considered "procurement" functions, they were and are not compatible and, when combined as a single Division, they operated as two separate and distinct organizational units reporting to one director. Printing is purchased by printing specialists under Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, while the contracting officers in Materials Management Service procure materials and supplies, machinery and equipment (including ADP equipment), and services by following the Federal Procurement Regulations promulgated by the General Services Administration. Personnel are not interchangeable, nor can the functions be combined; therefore, no savings in space or costs was, nor could be realized.

The function of Printing Procurement is operations oriented in that it serves other agencies, by purchasing or producing (in the Field Printing Offices) a single commodity, while Materials Management Service supports the internal operations of the Government Printing Office. They are, therefore, properly placed in the operating and support areas, respectively. Further, procurement is a relatively small part of the overall Materials Management function, which encompasses inventory control, shipping, receiving, warehousing, surplus property disposal, and traffic management. This combination of supply, procurement, and transportation is organizationally sound, and these responsibilities are traditionally assigned to the support area. They were separated in the early 1970's and that action has been vindicated every day since.

Pages vii and 118

Recommendation:

Customer Service procedures should be modified so that, when it is warranted, users can contact directly the technical specialist responsible for their job. Additionally, GPO should develop in-house

capabilities that will promote the identification of user requirements, and continually review internal procedures and respond to customer complaints regarding GPO's modus operandi.

Response:

The contractor apparently has a misconception of our procedures.
Customer Service procedures do not need to be modified to provide
assistance to its customers. Direct contact is permitted between
customer agencies and Production or Procurement when there is a
need.
Using one organization as point of contact for the customer
is the most practical organizational solution that can be applied
to cover the broad range of customer services required. The
virtually insurmountable task of generating and maintaining enough
current detailed information at multiple points of contact, that
would be necessary, would require a duplication of effort and

resources.

Previous attempts to ascertain future user requirements have not been beneficial because the customers know dollar allotments, but have little information on specific requirements.

GPO has been, and will continue to be, responsive to customer complaints and suggestions applicable to our operations.

[blocks in formation]

Each bookstore should be put on a self-sustaining basis by instituting mechanisms in which books are "sold" to each store, e.g., at a percentage of retail value. Thus, each bookstore would be provided with an operating margin from which all costs are paid.

Response:

This recommendation is unclear, but seems to indicate some sort of individual revolving fund for each bookstore. In our opinion, this would result in accounting for the sake of accounting.

We already have the capability to match cost and revenue and determine the profitability of each bookstore. It has been our policy in the past, and will continue to be our policy, to close down unprofitable bookstores whenever expected revenues fail to materialize or costs, such as GSA rental, escalate to a point which precludes profitable operation.

Page v and 119

Recommendation:

SU/DOC should develop a system whereby operating costs associated with inventory are collected, updated, and available for management review. Additionally, it is recommended that inventory levels and back orders be

examined in order to determine if either could be reduced to lower the inventory investment without impairing service delivery standards.

Response:

The contractor implies that information associated with inventory control is not collected and available for management review. This is not so. GPO now has a system whereby operating costs associated with inventory can be collected and made available for management review. Inventory levels and back orders are under constant surveillance.

C. Printing Procurement and Production

Pages v and 120

Recommendation:

The Printing Procurement Department should initiate a study of COPPD and CPSD in order to determine the feasibility of their consolidation.

Response:

GPO concurs that a study of the possible relocation of the Commercial
Printing Specification Division could produce beneficial results and
such a study will be made. This does not mean that the Commercial
Printing Specification Division will be absorbed by Central Office
Printing Procurement Division but it could well be consolidated with
Plant Planning operations.

Pages vi and 121

Recommendation:

CPO needs to examine the organizational location of FPD in order to determine if it should be placed in Operations. Furthermore, GPO and JCP staff should work together in developing a methodology to evaluate field printing operations so as to ascertain their efficiency and effectiveness in fulfilling customer agency requirements.

Response:

Other

The only thing that the Field Printing Division and the Production Department have in common is that both are production oriented. than this there is no similarity. The employees of the FPD are under a classification and pay system that is different from the employees in the Production Department; and, their principal mission and type of work is also different.

The Report fails to recognize the advantages of the present placement of FPD Three of the six field offices have managers that also manage the procurement office at that location. This gives the managers the advantage of using either facility when making decisions as to how a job is to be

produced to meet schedules, i.e. printed in house or procured from a commercial printer. The other three field printing offices have single managers but enjoy the same advantages by keeping a close liaison with the procurement office located in the same city. To place the FPD under the Production Department would provide no advantage over the present placement under the Printing Procurement Department. We do not agree that FPD should be under the Production Department.

Pages vi and 121

Recommendation:

A comprehensive review should be undertaken in order to determine how Region 3 RPPO and DSO might best be utilized in serving customer agencies and complementing Central Office operations.

Response:

How

As the GPO indicated to the contractor during the review, the consolidation of Region 3 RPPO with COPPD is a matter under current consideration. ever, the consolidation of DSO with Central Office operations is not feasible. DSO is not basically equipped nor manned to perform the type of work done by Central Office production. Nevertheless, DSO does serve as an outlet for many jobs received at the Central Office which cannot be economically produced on the more sophisticated equipment and facilities of the Central Office.

The contractor apparently has failed to perceive this unique function performed by DSO. For these and many of the reasons set forth in the response to the recommendation to place the Field Printing Division in the Production Department, the recommendation to relocate DSO is unacceptable.

Pages iv and 122

Recommendation:

A realignment of procedures and responsibilities needs to be instituted in order for the Production Division to have more control over the schedule for which it is responsible.

Response:

The contractor apparently has failed to perceive the high degree of coordination which currently exists between the Production divisions and the Customer Service departments.

The Production Department has scheduling representatives in the Plant Planning Division and the Congressional Information Section who coordinate job scheduling with the Production Manager and his staff to effect maximum utilization of manpower and equipment. The Night Production Manager has direct supervision over the congressional and other work

« PreviousContinue »