Program on Information Resources Policy

The Program on Information Resources Policy (PIRP) was a research program at Harvard University, sometimes referred to informally as "Harvard’s think tank on the information age." See ^[1] for a complete explanation. It was established on February 1, 1973 by Anthony Oettinger and John LeGates and closed on June 30, 2011 by the same principals. It worked in the realm of communications and information resources. At most points in its history it employed as many as 15 full time staffers, mostly professionals, as well as hosting scores of visiting scholars and sponsored researchers over the years. At any given time it was supported by about 100 different public and private organizations.

During the 1980s the principals of PIRP, in addition to Oettinger and LeGates, included John F. McLaughin, who headed areas of postal policy as well as national security issues; Benjamin Compaine, who directed areas of the media and literacy; and Oswald H. Ganley, who focused on international issues such as transborder data flows.

As is typical for an academic program, it offered courses and seminars, but it also produced more than 500 book-length reports, most after reviews from industry, government and academia.^[2] However, its principal goal was to aid industry, government and public decision makers with sound reasoning and with information that was both impartial and competent. For that mission it developed research and dissemination methods that were innovative and unique.

How the program worked

In the words of the Program:^[3]

• We deal mainly with controversial matters of continuing relevance.
• We work on emerging issues in the middle time range—a focus close enough for the issues to be of concern to real stakeholders and remote enough for outcomes to be open.
• We lay out the essentials of controversies but do not take sides, make recommendations, or attempt to predict the future.
• We forego relationships that might bias us—such as consulting, partisan expert testimony, or membership on corporate boards.
• We operate with diversified financial support from stakeholders in the controversies worked on.
• Our work is reviewed by these stakeholders and by members of the relevant professions and disciplines.
• All our work is available to the public. Everyone knows in advance that this is so.
• Our work is neither proprietary nor classified. We neither work toward external deadlines nor respond to requests for proposals (RFPs).
• We aspire to intellectual, financial, and institutional stability regardless of the ins and outs of fashions and incumbencies.

The Program held itself as being both impartial ^[4] and competent.^[5]

Because it worked in areas of contentious policy debates, from its founding the Principals were concerned about the perception that, for many researchers, accepting funding from a particular interest could taint the findings of the research, no matter how impartial the authors claimed to be. To address this concern, Oettinger and LeGates devised a funding plan that sought small sums from many competing stakeholders in the information industries. "Being bought by everybody, we are bought by nobody," is how they explained this model.^[6] All operations were funded by "Affiliates" that provided contributions, usually on an annual basis, that went into a blended "pot." The Principals made the determination what research to undertake, aiming to build knowledge for use when and where it’s needed. It never accepted funds from any source that would be designated for a specific research project. Whether a contributing affiliate or not, "We do not take sides—in any form. We are in the business of description, not prescription. We map the territory—you position your forces." ^[7]

To address the goal of competence, PIRP established process of continuous fact-finding and written analysis. It created a "vetting" procedure for all its published research. A first draft would be circulated among Affiliates as well as outsiders who might have relevant expertise. Among the questions they were typically asked might be: Do we have the facts straight? Have we presented the position of your industry or your agency accurately? Have we unearthed the critical controversies?^[8]

The Program's primary avenue for disseminating its research was through its approximately 500 publications. Most were extensively reviewed by both disciplinary experts and by stakeholders in the topics under discussion. Full texts of almost all are available on the Program website.^[9]

However, PIRP's objective was to make the information it developed available to decision makers in real time. This was most often accomplished by face–to-face meetings, usually with senior people in the affiliates. One customary format would be for the affiliate to describe its major uncertainties. The Program's Principal's would respond with whatever they knew that might be relevant. The hoped-for result, if any, would be better information and thinking for the affiliate. Although Program Principals did not sign nondisclosure agreements, it assured those with whom they met confidentiality.^[10] Program Principals also disseminated its findings and analysis through testimony and presentations, when requested, to Federal and state policymakers as well as in other public forums.

Financial supporters/work affiliates

Over its career, the Program was supported at one time or another by about 400 organizations, called "Affiliates". They included industry players, government agencies, non-profit organizations, trade associations and advocacy groups in the U.S., Canada and globally. It worked closely with those and many others. Here is the complete list over the 38 years of its operations:

Reviews and compliments

The impact of the Program is hard to measure directly: How can it be determined that organizations made better decisions? One metric would the breadth and continuity of the financial support (see list of affiliates). Another would be quotable feedback and praise from the people with whom the program worked. Here are some samples. (A longer list is at.^[11]) :

In my view, you and your group are more significant than anyone else in the information age turning out so well. Ivan Seidenberg, Chairman and CEO, Verizon, 2012

My Federal Agency is only a year old as of yesterday, but it owes some of the impetus for its formation to spade work begun by Mr. Oettinger, Mr. LeGates and your colleagues for the past several years.... Your Program has also been a source of important substantive ideas and insights. I myself have cribbed shamelessly.... Ambassador John E. Reinhardt, Director, International Communications Agency, 1979

I wish I had discovered this place two years ago before I went to the FCC. I'm sure I could have had two more productive years had I had a chance to talk to you beforehand. Anne Jones, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, 1981

You are like a breath of fresh air blowing through a miasma of hot air, which permeates the national dialogue on telephony. You are the only one I have met in the last fourteen years…who understands the situation, articulates it, and does so without prejudice. Edward P. Larkin, Chairman, New York Public Service Commission, 1984

In the course of its work on developing the JCS bill, the Investigations Subcommittee, which I chair, has benefited significantly from the studies authored by retired General J. H. Cushman. I understand that the Program on Information Resources Policy has sponsored General Cushman’s work, and commend you for supporting a project that is having an immediate, constructive impact as the Congress frames the future structure of the defense establishment. Congressman Bill Nichols, 1985

The Program on Information Resources Policy, through its independent and incisive analyses, free from special interest and partisan considerations, has helped me and my predecessors cut through the noise and get to the bottom of important public policy issues in the communications and information field. Over the years, the Harvard Program has become an indispensable institution on which policymakers in both the public and private sector have come to depend for truthful and fearless advice, even if its views have run sometimes counter to popular or conventional wisdom. For a Congressman to deal with people who are in fact impartial and competent is a rare experience. I recognize this program and your work as being critical to the development of sound telecommunications policy, and I support your continued efforts to examine these important issues. Congressman Edward J. Markey, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, 1991

This chapter is the most succinct and analytical source yet available for elucidating local distribution policy, planning, and marketing. Journal of Communication 1985

(Longstaff’s draft is) the best thing I ever read in the field. I need another copy. Senator McCain is reading it and won’t let it go. John McCain/Mark Buse, Senator John McCain’s office, 1995

Your work is a distinguished contribution not only to the world of research and to your university, but to all of us whose life is caught up in the business of communication. Robert D. Lilley, President, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 1974

Last week’s conference was the finest I have ever attended. John R. Bennett, President, Transamerica Information Services, 1977

We are appreciative of the constructive work that you have been doing, particularly in the postal arena, and we certainly hope that you will continue to contribute to clearer thinking about the Postal Service here in this country. Kent Rhodes, Chairman, Reader's Digest, 1978

Your center is a gold mine of information—and I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness in filling up my reading file with such helpful and insightful materials. "You could have used my name if you hadn’t asked", Executive Office of the President, 1990

Your chart of information industries revenues will save us and our consultants many hundreds of hours of labor. I am especially grateful for your willingness to send a handwritten table prior to publication—we will guard it with our lives. Charles M. Oliver, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Policy, CBS, Inc., 1981

I want both of you to know that our luncheon session last month and your follow-on work paid big dividends for us. George H. Bolling, Vice President, Advanced Programs, COMSAT, 1990

There is no trace of the mindless pap which passes as "debate on regulation." Media Information Australia, 1985

Have now read the C3I paper. Absolutely fascinating, and very useful to me in preparing a speech I hope to make on the SDI program later this week. The quality of the discussion was quite exceptional, and kept me reading all weekend! Sir Ian Lloyd, M.P., House of Commons, U.K., Chairman: All parties Committee on Communications Technology, 1986

The Program is in our view the pre-eminent honest broker in the massive job of keeping track of what is happening to, and within, the industry that comprises the means of moving information from place to place. John Morgan, Assistant to Executive Vice President, Communications Workers of America, 1981

There is no question at all that Washington looks at your work as an outside expert of very high credibility. I see your testimony reflected in their decisions as well as hearing about you in their discussions. Your work and your role are excellent. William Ditch, American District Telegraph Corporation, 1981

David Charlton was very high in praise for you as the highest quality effort he has ever come in contact with. Frank Kapper, Corning, Inc., 1989

I am amazed at the religious fervor with which Apple is using your map. I was handed it as background reading for my meeting with Sculley, Chairman and Nagle, Chief Scientist. They said “this may take you a while”. John Schwartz, Newsweek (reporter), 1993

References

External links

• Official PIRP web site