Managing the Quantity of Client Requests and the Quality of Parliamentary Research (and Reference) Services

Dr J R Verrier
Australian Parliamentary Information and Research Service

APLA Conference, Melbourne, July 2001

1. Introduction

By providing the information, analysis and advice that all Senators and Members need to perform their parliamentary and representational roles to fullest effect, information specialists (librarians) and analysts (research specialists) assist the Parliament hold the Executive to account. In this they play a similar role to that performed by parliamentary committees. But it is a role which goes unremarked and has, to date, featured little in the academic literature largely because, unlike committees (with public hearings and published reports), its largest part is confidential.

All Senators and Members use the Information and Research Services of the Department of the Parliamentary Library to a greater or lesser degree. Thus the clients of the IRS include 224 Senators and Members, their 1,000+ staff, the 55 Committees of both Houses, their staff, other Parliamentary Departments and a number of discretionary 'others' in large part resulting from professional networks. Altogether, these lodged 33,870 requests in the 1999-2000 financial year. This puts in perspective the demands placed upon the approximately 100 staff in Information and Research Services (the client services Program) and the approximately 50 staff in Resources Development (the support Program). Thus to manage the quantity of demand to the quality required to retain the trust, confidence and, ultimately, the custom of Senators and Members is the critical challenge.

In the contemporary environment of outsourcing, reducing resources, information explosion and proliferating private sector alternatives (or apparent alternatives), there are those who believe that parliamentary information, research and analysis services are either an anachronism or a luxury parliaments can no longer afford. However, fortunately, the prevailing view is that parliamentary information and research services are even more critical for parliamentarians for whom work pressures, and the complexity and range of issues which they need to understand, continues to increase exponentially. In this view, too, significant is the appreciation that understanding is unlikely to be achieved by an efficient flow of information only.

This paper takes as a given that the existence of the Information and Research Services (IRS) of the calibre provided to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has become an accepted part of a robust Australian democracy and parliamentary tradition. It proposes that it is the responsibility of its providers to balance the quality against the demands of quantity in the interests of the continuing provision of particular, parliamentary, value-added information, research and analysis services to Australia's federal elected representatives.

2. The Particular Characteristics of the Australian Commonwealth Parliamentary Information and Research Service.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Information and Research services have changed dramatically since the creation of a Federal Parliament in 1901 and with it what was at first a Federal Parliamentary Library offering fairly traditional library services. Over the years, it designed or developed, inherited or had thrust upon it, or arrived at by a process of democratic osmosis two particular characteristics which, perhaps paradoxically, have created both its greatest opportunity and its greatest threat. These are the commitment to the provision of individually tailored requests (directed research) and the commitment to personalised service. Together they result in a unique high quality parliamentary-specific value-adding service in extremely high demand. Put another way, quality has resulted in quantity.

Individually tailored or directed research

Clients consistently proclaim that the most valued aspect of the Information and Research Services is access to an individually tailored, confidential service. This includes everything from, e.g.:

* a shadow foreign minister asking for a paper on an alternative foreign policy for Australia

* a request for ‘Economics One’ - equivalent coaching on understanding the budget process or regular oral briefings on one or another aspect of it

* a Minister making a request such as "my Department is telling me this. What do you think?'

* assistance to develop platform policy: 'I don't like my party's policy on … and I would like you to….' .

* it also includes 'cautioning' advice on an approach that a member wants to take if the objective evidence does not support it (e.g. criticising spending of a previous government)

* and requests to be kept regularly up to date on developments in a given area.

This kind of individually tailored response makes up more than 50% of the research/analysis workload and 75%+ of requests overall. Why is this so? Why will a brief prepared by parliamentary research analysts always be of more value to parliamentarians than the most learned journal article or the most comprehensive selection of information from the Internet? The answers include:

* parliamentary 'nous'

o understanding of the context in which the analysis is likely to be used and its preparation accordingly, and
o knowledge of the particularities and preferences of the individual client applied in the preparation

* highest calibre applied professional expertise, written or presented with the non-specialist in mind

* timeliness: the complete or 'perfect' response takes second place to assisting the MP with something in time.

The optimum IRS response is not just facts and not just analysis - it is applied advice relevant to the issue at hand and it is advice often seasoned by many years of parliamentary observation and experience. Senators and Members use Parliamentary Information and Research Services because they cannot necessarily assume to find the breadth or depth of experience in their own staff who, especially for backbenchers, are likely to be more junior, less experienced and to be political workers and generalists or, at more senior levels, have a different role to play. And while there is a host of alternative sources of information available to MPs (lobby groups, party based research, academic experts, Departments of State, Internet etc) , none of these offers the unique combination of the particular qualities offered by IRS, namely independence, timeliness, impartiality and confidentiality .

We are parliamentarians' searchers, sifters, sorters, synthesisers, assessors and analysts and, as required, consultants or advisers on alternatives and options. It is not for us to provide simply a flow of data but rather to offer specific insights - understanding - on the issue at hand. And in this there is a great trust. We must offer a service to meet all the legitimate intellectual requirements of MPs and the Parliament (or someone else will). And, significantly, an unintended but very significant benefit of doing so is the opportunity to learn more and expand our capacities by pursuing the individual perspectives of Senators and Members and, thereby, adding to the intellectual capital of the organisation and that 'nous' which gives us our comparative advantage.

A personalised service

Feedback from clients including in formal external qualitative evaluations, makes it very clear that it is the personalised service which sets the IRS apart and makes the difference. For resource management reasons, as much as possible must be available to all, and clients cannot 'lock up' information or analysis, any more than they can monopolise the services of a particular staffer. But it is the priority given to the individual response, that going of the extra mile to make the generalised brief specific that is valued. One size does not fit all in the parliamentary environment (as feedback also makes quite clear). A resource management and access strategy to put material out or up on the net to encourage clients to help themselves - extraordinarily valuable as it is the more it has also been value-added from a parliamentary perspective - will still meet the need only in some circumstances for some of the time.

It is the opportunity for consultation, negotiation and a sounding board that is unique. The client's job is to be the politician or the legislator (or an aid thereto), not the subject specialist (how could they be when the range of their interests must be infinite?). Nor is it their job to be the IT whiz who is master of all the Internet. Research in the business sector, the public sector and academia points conclusively to the key success factor in a client relationship as being personalised service. What this means in a parliamentary environment, where the right balance must be struck between promoting service and pushing agendas on the one hand, and between offering flexible service and interfering or being a nuisance on the other, is the adoption of the following kinds of strategies:

* know the client: who they are, what kind of seat do they hold (safe/marginal; metropolitan/rural); are they new and ambitious or close to retirement; what does their educational and professional background and experience to date suggest about possible interests, etc etc…

* listen and think: reflect on what would be your requirements if you were in the position for which the assistance is being sought

* target key clients, e.g. by each work Group identifying its approximately 10 to 20 'key' clients - because of their front bench position, professional interest or known public profile - and meet with them and their staff at the beginning of each new Parliament and/or at times of key change in their position to explore their thinking and introduce Group expertise

* respond to the geography of Parliament House (the 7 minute walk from most offices) and visit clients, especially to discuss major or long term requests

* take every opportunity to deliver jobs personally to create the opportunity for a discussion about it - or simply to meet MP and staff face-to-face

* commit to the follow up and training from initial induction process at the beginning of the life of every parliament and, especially, offer personalised one-on-one training to ensure that they are both aware of the value added electronic services available on a 24 hour basis and on how to use them

* 'hear' all feedback both good and bad.

3. Strategies to manage demand

Astonishingly we still come across often senior, seasoned MPs whose general profile would suggest high use across the spectrum of services, but who are sometimes unaware of the full range of those services. While I hold a very strong personal view that the description of the department as the Department of the Parliamentary Library is one reason for this (creating certain expectations in clients' minds but not others), it is clear that our marketing leaves a great deal to be desired. Should this be a concern when managing existing demand is already a great challenge? Yes absolutely, and this on account of the commitment to equal access for all. Complacency about right of access is not an acceptable demand management strategy. Rather, these should focus on:

* provision of clear rules about access to service and the extent of service - and stick to them; The Commonwealth Parliament has a Statement of Client Service

* strategic use of the Library Committee to keep it informed of work flows and pressures

* training staff in refining the request interview: 'I want something on…'can mean everything from a two inch column on page 10 of this morning's Canberra Times, through five dot points for an adjournment speech this evening, to a definitive analytical brief canvassing the latest research in 'x" and examining a possible legislative response. The clarifying request interview is probably the single most significant load management work practice to ensure that responses provide no more, and no less, than is required to meet the specific requirement of the client

* building up staff confidence both to do the 70% job (when time and demand allow for no more) and to caution the client about its limits

* offering an oral briefing when there is no time to write one, talking the client through the issue (and follow up with summary dot points if possible)

* use of the stock paper or Oxford Analytica-plus approach

* negotiating the size, shape and timeframe of the request, while being wary of giving short shrift to the same client too often. This amounts to a deliberate spreading/sharing of the top end of the market and the bottom end of the market equitably. E.g. if a major piece of work has been done for the requesting client recently, all other things being equal, this is a candidate for the Oxford Analytica-plus approach or some reference materials

* within the spirit of the principle of equal-access-for-all-on a first-come-first-served basis, targeting the clientele, developing close working relations with the high users (Opposition front benches, ambitious high flyers, third parties) and making careful judgements about priorities with focus on the parliament in mind.

General Distribution Products (GDPs)

The production of GDPs, available to all parliamentarians on request, is a key mechanism to manage client demand. To have a paper prepared on the US Missile Defense Program, The Netherlands Euthanasia Legislation or Crude Oil Excise and Royalties, in a certain sitting week in May, could take a great deal of pressure off the individual specialist concerned who may otherwise have several members wanting individual briefings. While some clients may still want 'top-up' briefings, or pursuit of an aspect not canvassed in the paper, this can be done orally.

Importantly, as well as being a key strategy to manage demand, investment in the major resource commitment of the production of a quality paper - and undoubtedly this is what it is - is a vital mechanism for the specialist to build up and maintain his/her expertise. Like the major individual paper for a particular client which (after discussion with its initiator) may qualify for re-development as a GDP, GDP production is resource building – to the intellectual capital of staff and to the organisation.

Intellectual capacity building, and its corollary the capacity for speed in responding to related requests, are two powerful reasons to invest in major pieces of individually commissioned research and GDPs. And they are the reasons why an organisation of the kind that Information and Research Services is cannot afford not to commit these resources to this product. As well it provides the opportunity to go the extra mile for the individual MP and thus 'cement them on' to the service and, as such, is an investment in the commitment of a future clientele.

4. Quality control mechanisms

Emphasis on quality bring with it requirements for quality control, itself a resource cost. But the investment is returned by a quality product, the confidence of the clients in it, reputation in the wider academic and professional community and a capacity for 'courageousness' to address even the tough and contentious issues. Rigorous quality control mechanisms provide the support of the institution for the speedy production of briefs on emerging issues. Clients can be confident that the best possible job has been done in the time available from public or publishable sources.

Quality control in the case of one-one-one work is intrinsically a more complex issue than it is for General Distribution Products. It is particularly difficult for reference work (and this is an issue which is addressed in the accompanying paper by Nola Adcock.)

Quality of staff

The most critical element in the quality control chain is the quality of staff in the first instance. IRS staff have top-line professional qualifications, extraordinary personal qualities appropriate to the highly sensitive, highly pressured service-oriented parliamentary environment and excellent judgement and maturity. IRS is (probably) the beneficiary of the most ‘qualified’ librarians (all have a degree and a librarianship qualifications) and all have many years experience. Analysts are almost invariably at least honours students with the majority having one or another kind of post-graduate qualification. Because of the extraordinary responsibilities they carry - unique autonomy is given to staff to make judgements about the best way to respond to a particular request - the structure is flat (relatively speaking) and made up mostly of quite senior staff at the middle level public servant SOG B and SOGC level, (now in the Parliamentary environment called PE2 and PE1).

Work practices

There is a strong culture of always seeking a second opinion, a second reader, however pressing the deadline, and also perhaps of looking at how this kind of request for this kind of client may have been handled in the past. There is a strong culture, too, of seeking to make sure the request goes to the person best able to respond to it and to keeping an eye out for its inter-disciplinary dimensions. This involves resisting pressure which may come from the client for a particular person to do the job or simply from an individual’s over-enthusiasm, and it involves understanding and recognition of expertise across work groups.

Sharing experience is vital – e.g. by way of the Group ‘Greens’, and the key meetings communication network (Subject Group and Client Services Program meetings, Central Inquiry Point meetings and Management Team Meetings).

Integrated Professional Teams

Integrated professional teams provide the opportunity to deliver the kind of response required without the client needing to be aware of the service point to approach. Integrated professional teams provide the opportunity for the two distinct professions to support each other for optimum quality and efficiency. E.g. a request for the best latest article on… is more likely to be provided by an information specialist talking to the relevant analyst because the best person most likely to know is the expert whose job it is to read the literature in a given professional area. Similarly, the analysts who is not the expert in seeking and finding resources available will be greatly assisted in the speed and depth of his/her resource base by working cooperatively with librarians. Integrated professional teams are also leading to innovation in client responses, including the development of new hybrid products such as chronologies, E-Briefs and the Briefing Book for the next Parliament.

GDP management

There is a rigorous process of GDP selection and development both to justify the resource commitment and ensure its parliamentary quality. A Forecast of Emerging Issues process, a biannual strategic resource planning and project identification exercise (above and beyond the routine) leads to resource adequacy assessment and, eg., whether a GDP, a consultant, or a Vital Issues Seminar (VIS) is suggested. A Tracking Sheet signed off by the Group Director presents the rationale for the GDP, indicates the estimated timeframe for production and identifies the external reader. A Workshop is held on the draft paper attended by specialists and non-specialists (usually a representative from each subject Group, interested Committee staff and the Head) where organisation and presentation, balance and parliamentary focus and ease of comprehension for the non-specialist reader, are considered. A new draft is prepared in the light of Workshop and external reader comments. All GDPs are cleared by the relevant Group Director and then by the Head (except E-Briefs and Bills Digests which if non-controversial, are cleared at Director level).

5. Conclusions

Credibility and responsiveness are the two qualities that clients repeatedly say they value in the services of the IRS and this surely means achieving a fine balance between quality and quantity. In the Australian Commonwealth context, quality is delivering the product the individual client has requested, be it of a reference, analytic or advisory nature, large or small, immediate or long term, straightforward or complex. 'Quality' does not apply only to the resource intensive individual client policy option papers or research analysis prepared for the high fliers, or to the GDP. It is pertinent to everything we do.

There is, however, sometimes debate about the value of the (fairly small percentage) of very high 'cost'/resource intensive products in the context of the quantity debate. We can't afford to do them, is one perspective. We must manage our resources to ensure that we do them is another. I lean heavily to the latter for two very significant reasons. The first is that it is just as legitimate - or the client has just as much 'right' to the best possible job for that smaller proportion of the market which requires it as he/she has to the smaller faster job. This is one interpretation of the policy of equal access to all on a first come first served basis. It is also a reflection of the judgement that it is a response to a legitimate intellectual inquiry from a member of parliament (who will otherwise seek to have this need met elsewhere).

The second argument is, and it is one I have long made to defend the resource commitment to the extensive individual response and the GDP is their contribution to resource building and, therefore, ultimately to effectiveness. There is no doubt that the expertise acquired assists us apply qualitative judgements to manage quantity. Not only does it enable the organisation to respond to general client requirements, it enables the specialist concerned to build up and maintain his/her expertise or intellectual capital for subsequent drawdown. By doing so - we have the perfect outcome, albeit the ultimate paradox in the accountability framework of our times, i.e. is how to measure the cost and value of a response to a request which takes a highly qualified and highly experienced analyst 10 minutes. That 10 minute achievement is the result often of many years of reading, researching and responding to related requests in the parliamentary context. Someone with less background could well take days, or even weeks to do the same job. This alone, is one very good reason to take the longer term view of the value of the commitment to individual client papers and GDPs. It is also a very good reason to develop integrated response teams, or at the very least, communicative work styles that encourage the sharing of wisdom in these kinds of cases to avoid the resource costs that could otherwise be incurred.

'Rolls Royce: Rolls Royce: Ford'. This was the protest of the Japanese ambassador at the 5:5:3 ratio proposed for the three largest naval powers (the US, Britain and Japan) in the attempt to limit naval rearmament in the wake of World War One. While no such fixed ratios are appropriate for the management of client demand in a parliamentary environment, the parallel may be used to put the quality/quantity debate in perspective. The Rolls Royce, for all the reasons described above must continue to be turned out or turned on. Equally, it must also be recognised that for many purposes, the Ford will do perfectly well.

As with most things, it is not a question of either/or. Rather, it is about a balance, a balance which allows for the provision of support for the different requirements of different Members of Parliament in different circumstances. In practice this means a continued commitment in the Australian Commonwealth Parliamentary Information and Research Service to the priority traditionally given to the individual request and a strong emphasis on personalised service. These are background 'givens', to managing the quality/quantity nexus.