392 
PROCUREMENT PACKET 
Tables of Manufacturers of Analytical.lastrumantg 
Originally, the working group produced a catalog of 
analytical instruments comprising brochures published by 
the manufacturers. The catalog proved to be impractical 
because it was a loose-leaf notebook that was relatively 
expensive to produce, update, and mail. To defray some of 
the expenses, a nominal charge had to be levied so the 
demand was small. Additionally, the brochures became 
outdated almost as scon as they were placed in the 
notebook . 
After the first update, it was decided to replace the 
catalog with a set of tables listing manufacturers in 
alphabetical order, their analytical instruments, and the 
salient features of each instrument. These tables are 
produced and updated with a wordprocessor, and they will be 
mailed to users free, Before they are released, each 
manufacturer will be given a chance to review them for 
accuracy. 
Standards and Specifications for Analytical instruments 
Producing standards and specifications for analytical 
instruments was a working group objective for several years 
before a beginning was made. While generally most users and 
a few manufacturers favor standards and specifications, 
many oppose it for various reasons. 
The first document produced was a guide on preparing 
specifications for procurement. It was intended as a 
starting point for expansion, and the present working group 
is upgrading and expanding this document. The work is to be 
completed before the present term of Working Group Il/l 
expires in 1992. 
Anajyt fça.l.. S.te^^oplpttei.. S.vaJLuati,on..gtt.iag 
The first version cf the evaluation guide was produced 
under the 1976-80 tenure of Dr. B. Makarovic, and it has 
needed revising only once. This was done during the 1984-88 
tenure of the Working Group by Mr. Daniel Andrews of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. It has been reviewed by the 
present Working Group II/l and judged sufficiently 
up-to-date. 
The evaluation guide is designed so that analytical 
stereoplotters are evaluated in an hierarchical, tree-like 
structure with each category of features being broken down 
into groups and subgroups. Features are weighted according 
to their importance and for each feature each instrument is 
assigned a numerical rating according to the degree to 
which it fulfills the feature. Both the weights and the 
numerical ratings are entered into the formula used to 
compute a numerical evaluation for each instrument. In the