Here's a hypothesis for discussion:

Desktop computers and other office automation (email and voice mail) and the virtual elimination of clerical and secretarial positions during the 1980s and 1990s have increased the clerical content of contracting work. Today's GS-1102 and industry counterpart does more clerical work than their predecessors of the late 1970s or early 1980s, and thus have less time for professional work.

To illustrate:

In the mid-1970s a contracting officer would have composed a memo using paper and pencil and then handed it to a GS-05 clerk or secretary to proof, format, and type. The contracting officer would have done perhaps one edit and then the clerk or secretary would have typed it in final form for signature. Today, a GS-12 or GS-13 contracting officer composes/proofs/formats/types the memo without any help from a clerk or secretary. Because word processing software encourages the pursuit of document perfection, the contracting officer probably does more than one edit and spends as much or more time on the memo than the contracting officer and the clerk combined would have spent twenty years ago. Thus, the government is incurring a higher average cost for the same work.

Similarly, systems for the electronic preparation and submittal of forms and form-like documents -- such as DD Form 350s and solicitations -- demand near perfection by rejecting the document until prepared in conformity with the software protocol. Since GS-1102s are expected to prepare these forms on their desktop computers, which is essentially a clerical task, they end up spending more time doing it than they would have done in the past, as they seek to get the system to accept submissions that do not conform to the software's requirements.

Thus, as a result of office automation, contracting officers and contract specialists are expected to use their desktop computers to do work that a clerk or secretary would have done in the past. Some people think that this has improved productivity, but my hypothesis is that office automation and the elimination or severe reduction of clerical and secretarial postitions has diluted the professional content of 1102 work, thereby making it less satisfying and attractive, and increased the cost of clerical and secretarial work.

Does my hypothesis have any merit?

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 12:48 pm:

Vern:

You have pointed out some drawbacks of office automation. However, there is a point to be made for information availability.

A few moments ago, I spent about an hour with a copier and various law texts. I copied 10 of 11 cases I wanted. Fortunately, the justices did not want to chat that much on the 10 cases. However, I did not copy an 80-page case because I did not have the time. All of these cases are available on the internet but I am leaving the wired world for the next week. So I had to resort to paper, yellow marker, and maybe even paper and pen. The latter really scares me.

Although all professional office workers are now doing clerical work to some extent, we now have access to a store of information at our fingertips. Researching protests, legal cases, and regulations online is a great advantage over the unwired world of years ago. There are things we do today that we could not a decade ago. If these tools are used in the daily life of a contracting officer, I think the benefits of the information age will outweigh the clerical work.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 01:14 pm:

Bob:

I agree that it's great to have so much info readily at hand. (It was always there, just not readily at hand). But -- forgive me -- that's not my issue.

My issue is the impact that office automation and workforce restructuring has had on the content of GS-1102 work and and on GS-1102 job satisfaction. Do contracting personnel do more clerical work than they did in the past? If so, how much more, and are they happy about it? What are the organizational and professional implications of the increased clerical content of the work? What effect has it had on organizational efficiency and effectiveness and on workforce recruitment and retention?

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 01:25 pm:

Vern,

No way!

When I started at NAVAIR, I wrote my clearances out laboriously on lined paper, gave it to a secretary, then made changes using scissors and tape. Given the nature of the NAVAIR clearance review process there were always plenty of changes.

DCAA audit reports took months to get through the process of typing and approval, and the auditor would never give you access to the work papers.

Further, anyone who wants to do spreadsheets using a pencil rather than Excel or Lotus is a nut who enjoys pain.

Computers really have revolutionized our career field. I can't imagine anyone who would want to go back.

There was plenty of perfectionism before the computers took over. And much of it was an obstacle to productivity. Informal communication was discouraged and formal communication went out in the form of a letter, written by a worker bee, rewritten by several helpers, and signed by someone a level or two above the worker bee. Now we use e-mail unless we really, really need to be formal.

The software which goes completely off the track, with every move which doesn’t comply exactly with its protocol, is fundamentally flawed, user-hostile software. Real mass market, commercial, software doesn’t behave that way. (And doesn’t last very long in the market if it does.) This will get fixed.

Professionals are doing more of the work that secretaries used to do because the powers that be have fired all of the secretaries. (Anyone with enough rank to have a secretary has an “administrative assistant” these days.) Secretaries do lots of useful things in addition to typing, and all of these little chores have been shifted to the professional staff. It isn’t simply typing which is the problem.

This is not to say that you are entirely wrong. Scientific American looked at this problem a couple of years back, and selected a very exact, highly technical term to describe the problem. I believe the term was “futzing.”

If I were running an agency, I would outlaw PowerPoint and any kind of viewgraph that couldn’t be quickly formatted using the simplest word processing formatting techniques.

Of course the same mentality that would always want to change tomayto to tomahto, wants the fanciest graphics. That’s human nature.

I should note in passing that there was an expectation in some quarters that the computer would mechanize the process and make it easy to lay most of us off. This is not so much right or wrong as it is completely ignorant. It reflects a total misunderstanding of what we do.

The preparation of RFPs and contracts was never more than a small part of a complicated job. Even if the software cuts the time in half, the impact on the total workload is not significant.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 01:40 pm:

Eric:

So you think that there is more clerical work, but that it is due to workforce restructuring, not office automation. Thanks for your input.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 02:36 pm:

Vern, I agree with you that we (not just 1102's) do much more clerical type work now, than in the 70's. (Fortunately for me, I can E-mail a draft to my secretary to finish for me.)And computers don't "save work!" However, I believe I get just as much or more high level work done now, as earlier.

My secretary now has more time to handle more complex tasks for me, too! But I only have one. I used to have two plus other clerical help. The workforce has restructured because of automation.

I'm convinced that my desktop and laptop computers allow me to and make me accomplish more work than I could, before computers.

Oh, how I longed for a computer, as the Resident Office's "office engineer", to handle all the repetitive or similar reports, math problems, survey calculations, tasks and similar information from 20 active contracts I was administering, negotiating changes to, etc. Everything was hand written with penciled spreadsheets used for everything. Monthly reports and pay estimates were simply edits of the previous month but had to be completely retyped. Government estimates for similar work were rewritten. Same with pre-negotiation objectives, technical analyses, resumes of negotiations, technical reports and engineering studies. I spent hours sorting originals for my secretary to copy, then cutting and pasting the updates for her to type, then re-organizing the originals to be returned to the appropriate files. Now, the office engineers can copy and quickly edit everything. I'm envious.

Each handwritten letter or memo had to be near perfect, when handed off to my secretary to type up the 'draft'. Then we proof-read, edited and went final. No mistakes were tolerated in a final letter/memo or it was completely retyped (same standard, today). My secretary and I thanked God for correctable typewriters! However, the first draft was essentially how the letter ended up - no improvements or re-thinking allowed. Now, I can take out my frustrations in the first draft composition, then cool off and edit as necessary to be more civil. You know what I mean.

E-mail has almost eliminated writing memoranda for me. E-mail allows me to communicate more quickly and efficiently with the 5 Resident Offices, other Division elements, here, and other COE Districts, Headquarters, etc.

Communications is a major portion of most higher level positions - the communications capabilities are SO enhanced by computers and communications software.

A few years ago, I heard that a group of auditors were downgraded because they spent so much more of their time performing clerical work on their computers. I don't know whether it was true.... Happy Sails! Joel

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 02:42 pm:

Vern:

Increased availability and processing of information is the issue because it is how the contracting officer acquires and manages the information to do his/her job.

A contracting officer of old had to handwrite a memo, give it to a secretary, proof it, give it back for corrections, proof it again, add whiteout, retype it, go to a copier, and finally he/she would have a good copy. They were clerics assisting other clerics. Now they sit at a screen, type something, add information from an online source, paste it into the document, run a speller, and print it out. Their own effort is increased productivity. That is why clerical positions have been eliminated. They are not efficient.

The use of something as simple as email directly ties contractor to contracting officer. This is the processing and using of information. Questions are asked and answered informally and quickly. It simply did not exist with the old clerical system.

Today's contracting officer can run pre-negotiation sessions with the auditor or techincal specialists through a video conference with individuals from anywhere in the world. They can pass documents back and forth during the video conference. When they were clerics assisting other clerics this was called science fiction.

In the old days information was always there; it was just never availalble when one needed it. Now it is at our fingertips. I don't think it is possible to discuss office automation without discussing the information age and the benefits it provides.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 02:53 pm:

Vern,

I oversimplified a complex issue. You have further oversimplified.

These are national issues and none of my comments (excepting, perhaps, the last) are at all original.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 03:07 pm:

Eric:

Please, Eric, what did I oversimplify? My own hypothesis or my interpretation of your comments? In what way did you oversimplify?.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 03:10 pm:

Bob:

You and Eric have made convincing arguments on behalf of the benefits of technology. Does that mean that you think that the clerical component of GS-1102 work has not increased?

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 03:12 pm:

Joel:

You, too, have made a convincing argument on behalf of the benefits of technology. Thanks for your input.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 03:30 pm:

Vern,

I defer to Joel's excellent and much better nuanced discussion of these issues.

I am probably not the best person to evaluate the "clerical component" issue. I am somewhat of a control freak and I find that it is often easier to "do it myself." The job gets done quicker, even if it costs me a little extra effort. I don't have to blame anyone but myself for the mistakes. I don't have to explain, I don't have to train, and I don't have to quality check.

The fact that there is no buffer between the external world and the professional means that the professional is subject to random disruptions. Answering machines are a kind of answer, but they create there own problems.

This is topic good for a long paper or a short book. Everything not addressed in these notes is simplification.
Eric

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 06:29 pm:

Vern:

Let me talk about my own situation.

In the 70s, we had the miserable draft, send to secretary, make corrections, send back to secretary, make corrections myself, use whiteout, type in the smaller amount of corrections, make copies to cover the whiteout, etc. I was at the mercy of individuals that did not understand our work. Additionally, typing was a small part of their effort.

In the 80s and early 90s, computers and then better computers were introduced. We had taken over the typing from the secretaries. It was quicker, we had better control of the work, but we were typing. We did get rid of our 12, 24, 36, and 48 column workpapers. We then used an electroniuc spreadsheet. However, at this point we had the basic primitive "office automation." To do research, I still used our law library and impressed individuals with my behind-the-back copying. They would not let me remove my shoes or I would have shown them some fancy footwork on those copiers.

Then it happened. Our computer received an additional plug. This time the dumb little machine could communicate with others. First, it was limited email. Then in 1995, that second plug took on more significance. We discovered the internet. Five years ago, the internet was in its infancy. Now it is the law library and the world library--period.

We also received video-conference machines in specific rooms. We could see each other from any part of the world; pass documents back and forth around the world while we were talking; view presentations from around the world, etc. Our "automated office" now reached other automated offices--anywhere. We were now involved in "office telecommunications."

Currently, if I have a team working with me, we store our files on a server we each have access to. If I have a draft I want them to see, they can view it from anywhere in the world. They can edit it and I can review their edits.

Going back to the contracting officer, I think it is difficult to categoize things as clerical now. Office telecommunications has created self-contained individuals and teams of people working together. We function differently and view our work differently. The real goal is to understand the possibilities, review law and regulation with those possibilities in mind, and eliminate the items that waste time or no longer make sense. At present, law and regulations cannot keep pace with the possibilities.

By Ramon Jackson on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 12:21 am:

I don't think the rise in computers has made any professional's work more clerical. Unless they have not mastered the basic office machine skills I doubt serious comparison would reveal more time spent in "clerical" activities. I too remember endless bouncing of handwritten, first typed draft, corrected draft, and eventual finals.

In my first days of government I almost quit because I spent an entire day hand carrying a classified memo between our division and department office. It was one page and managed to consume significant time of two administrative assistants, one secretary, most of mine and a noticeable time chunk of one division director and one department director. I got verbal instructions in addition to the red pencil on the blasted thing each trip back from department and similar in addition to the new typed version each trip back. Most were trivial disagreements on content vs. polish. The secretary and I were the only ones not choosing to be "clerical" about the thing!

Though I disagree with Vern's hypothesis on that specific I have long thought the computers or secretaries was a disastrous option set. We now have higher levels typing, though there is still a class of executives afraid of keyboards, but we have lost two vital things. The first is expert filing. The second is shorthand.

My hard copy filing system is horrible to see, though I can usually find something in the pile. Nobody else could. I am efficient and orderly in my electronic organization. Many aren't. Ever seen those screens with a virtual desktop looking like a major dump site? How many organizations have a filing system now organized so that almost any trained secretary could find the folder because it was filed in accordance with some training and standard? I can remember going to division and finding a branch secretary easily retrieving files. Good luck in most places today.

Anyone else out there who began to feel the Groundhog Day effect in meetings? I remember a series of command meetings over a period of weeks in which about 60% of the issues from the previous week were revisited and redecided. No minutes, just many memories and scratchy, sketchy notes.

Even our contractors couldn't provide really effective minutes. They were rough takes of what had happened recorded by engineers (in one case a recently retired O-6 wondering what misery he'd entered) who at best could write fast. I began insisting we stop meetings when a decision had emerged simply to record the decision as a group on blank view graph material. It helped, but made everyone irritable as we stopped to document what we'd just done. At least we didn't do it all the next day or month and we were able to stop some "I didn't agree to that!" Fights with documentation.

The real disaster of computers making everyone a "secretary" is that only the least essential work of a secretary was provided in the boxes. The real skills were left out and are largely lost. Computers could even help there, but there is an operator problem. The skill was in a person's head, not the filing cabinet.

Interesting, we know of computer media that can no longer be read because the hardware/software for reading is long gone. An document is found in the agency's files concerning a very important meeting long ago. It is in shorthand . . .

By Peggy Richter on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:33 am:

IMO the 1102 has more clerical work than before but it isn't the fault of the computers. It is a management decision regarding what they want 1102s to do. I've noted a tendency to require editing and re-editing documents on the presumption that "you can just fix it in the computer" - whereas in the past, rewrites were not perhaps as common and white-out was used a bit more - but that was the individual manager's decisions more than the tool. What seems to create clerical work is the quantum increase in reports and reports on the reports and studies on the reports ad infinitum. The 1102 does spend time creating a solicitation or contract whereas before they may have had a checklist for a clerk to type, but IMO that isn't the significant increase in clerical work. For me, the time spent creating the document, while clerical, isn't that significant. It's the rewriting of a decent clearance document because the wording isn't quite the way someone else might say something or the filling out of yet one more request for a study/survey. It is the Xeroxing of contractual documents, doing distribution, etc, because, as someone else has noted, all the clerks are gone. So yes, 1102s have a lot more clerical work now, but no, it isn't really the fault of the equipment we are using.

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 09:21 am:

I think the "clerical" bureaucracy has always been there; office automation just made it easier to compile and produce the required paperwork to comply with said paperwork. I remember when we first had to do J&As, what a nightmare! Scribbling, passing it to a clerk who banged it out on an electric typewriter. If you had to add something, you had to do all the pages afterwards... Gads! Not to mention me having to write everything out longhand in the first place.

These days, I can type faster than I can write (I'm really glad my Dad made me take Typing 101 in high school; the only guy in the class). I write very rarely these days, which is a problem I've noticed. Realistically, the only thing that I can do proficiently is sign my name!

I suppose a lot of what I'm doing can be considered "clerical". But, somebody did it way back when, and now I'm the one doing it. Office automation just made me capable of doing it.

Kennedy

By F. Cass on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 05:06 pm:

I agree the loss of clerical support for document preparation efforts is more than off-set by the efficiencies of technology. I too would not give up my software and computer!!

However, the problems I experience come from management's stated intent to load all clerical (not only the ones that increase efficiency/effectiveness) onto the 1102s. The explanation is it provides DoD "surge capacity" if there is ever a need to ramp up more procurement expertise in a short time. In the event of a conflict, it is easy to relieve the 1102s of work by downloading clerical functions and freeing up "professional" capacity.

Of course from my point of view they have gone too far. In theory SPS shoulders the clerical load so we have less budget for support folks. In actuality, SPS workarounds create huge clerical burdens. I did a study to prove my point to my management -- the 20% loss in efficiency was undisputed, but with SPS there appears to be no alternative. We must "grin and bear it."