Library Acquisitions: Praciice and Theory, Vol. 7, pp. 23-27, 1983 0364-6408/83/010023-05$03.00/0 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright @ 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd

ALA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 1982

REPORT ON THE ACQUISITION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS DISCUSSION GROUP

TYLER MILLER

LA PT Editorial Staff

University of Louisville Libraries

Louisville, KY 40292

The Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group, chaired by Gail Kennedy (University of Kentucky), and the Booksellers Discussion Group, chaired by Ed Lockman (The Book House), exchanged views on several acquisitions systems currently in use at a meeting on July 13 during ALA’s Annual Meeting. The panelists of the Acquisitions Discussion Group were: Scott Bullard (University of Louisville); Gay Henderson (Ohio State); Walter Hogan (Wayne State); Dave Neikirk (University of Delaware); and, Jana Stevens (New York University). The Booksellers panel consisted of Jim Cameron (Academic Book Center); Margaret Landesman (University of Utah); Ed Lockman; and Don Satisky (Black- well North America).

Prior to the discussion a business meeting was conducted. Nancy Cline (Pennsylvania State University) was elected vice-chair/chair-elect of the Acquisitions Group. Jay Askuvich (Midwest Library Service) was elected as the bookseller representative, and Susan Jacobson (Youngstown State) as the library advisor to the Booksellers Group.

The librarians had all been asked to give a presentation on the acquisitions systems in use in their libraries.

Walter Hogan reported on the Nonesuch Acquisitions System, available from Ringgold and currently in use at Wayne State. Hogan opened by stating that Wayne State had been a “guinea pig” for the system, which he further described as “‘unusual” and “three-quarters cooked.” The system uses Wang hardware; has online fund accounting; and has an interface with OCLC but no other specific systems. It is currently being used in some public service areas by the reference librarians to locate books that have been ordered, but not yet cataloged. In terms of the public, Hogan feels the system is user friendly. Under fund accounting the system is said to contain the budgeted, expended and encumbered balances, and while it could

23

24 TYLER MILLER

produce a voucher, this hasn’t yet been tried. There is still a great deal of paperwork and they still have to work with the accounting department. Transmission of orders could be done by electronic communications and the Book House, in particular, wants to further this capability since they are located close to Wayne State. Hogan did point out that in setting up a system giving one vendor preference they could end up “confusing our choice of system with choice of vendor.” Costs for the system are in excess of $100,000 (software and hardware packages; staff time and paper not included). If Wayne State gets rid of the system it will keep the hardware. Hogan concluded by bringing out two points. First, Wayne State has five medium- sized libraries that all do their own ordering. Consequently, they needed a system to provide better communication. This system is useful for standing orders and can link monographic series. Secondly, since no single person was dedicated to developing the system it was a joint effort that “was a good experience for us.”

The University of Delaware uses OCLC’s Acquisitions Subsystem. Delaware was one of the original test libraries and it has stayed with the system. Neikirk didn’t describe the system in detail, assuming most were familiar with it. He did mention that OCLC could handle standing orders. There is no serials check-in in acquisitions. The search keys are limited to the Roman alphabet. The order file is accessible through any field, which is of primary benefit to public services. Currently two terminals in public services are available to the public and logged on to the Acquisitions Subsystem with 18 months of acquisitions information available online. OCLC is “really not an online ordering system,” since vendors are still getting paper. The “action form” can’t be understood by the vendor in some cases, and occasionally, the vendor has received four forms rather than two. The cost of OCLC is mediated by the network. Current costs may be slightly higher than the present manual system. After 1% years with the system the three additional important points Delaware finds are an online file source with multiple access points; operational efficiency; and, online fund accounting. OCLC’s weak- nesses are in system stability and a need for better management control since vendor control is still done manually. Neikirk did point out that OCLC is currently working on modifications to make the system easier.

New York University has been using RLIN’s Acquisitions System for 10 months. Acquisitions, cataloging, and authorities are integrated in this system. The RLIN database currently has 6.5 million records, which can be used for any type of acquisitions orders. If there is no record they create their own. The system updates a record at any time, and provides a record for Cataloging to update. Specifications are designed by each library with screen prompts according to an individual library’s needs. Features include location (in- process, etc.); several accessible tables; fund codes; supply of messages (prepayment enclosed, etc.); and, full names and addresses of vendor by code. According to Stevens, “specifications fill needs sufficiently.” Searching can be done by multiple access points, including LCCN, ISBN, personal/corporate name, and title. Direct orders and some standing orders are placed through RLIN and approximately 75% are found, though this depends on the library-in other words, threequarters of the orders are based on these records with the purchase order number sent to the vendor. For the other 25% a record is created. A particularly useful feature that Stevens noted was that when an institution creates a record it is notified if another institution creates a better one in case they want to use the new one. Processing is done overnight and orders can be reviewed before they are sent to the vendors, e.g., to separate rush from regular. Each library can set up their own claiming time, and for the first time the claiming process is “painless.” A daily log records all decisions, a weekly log lists claims, and a petition log is used for queries. There is an electronic mail system available, but it hasn’t been used at NYU yet. RLIN’s good points are no more filing; fewer duplications; transfer of

Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group 25

records to Cataloging; efficiency; and, user friendliness. Its weaknesses are poor training manuals; response time; and the fact that one must still do accounting in-house. New York University needs to use the electronic mail system. For the future the hope is that RLIN will link with an online catalog that will accessible to the public through one system.

Henderson said that Ohio State reviewed turnkey systems beginning in 1979 and eventually decided upon Baker & Taylor’s LIBRIS. Between July and December 1981,43% of all orders were through LIBRIS; in 1982,82%; and currently they expect all orders to go through LIBRIS. The system is capable of handling any one-time order and the orders remain online until receipt. One problem is that one must have an invoice in hand before he/she can receive an item. Henderson said they hope to get rid of manual fund ledger sheets and to establish local data collection. Three points about the database are that library generated records aren’t added unless vended to Baker 8~ Taylor; searching can be done in nine ways; and, order tiles on LIBRIS must be added by a batch system which receives an automatic charge which can be used as a claim. There are several good points. One is that OSU has an approval plan with Baker&Taylor so one can tell if he/ she should expect a profiled title. Also, items can be held in a save tile; encumbrances don’t change but will show what amount will be released; there is an automatic check for duplicates; there are no students filing in drawers; and, input is minimal owing to the way the system is set up. LIBRIS costs are based on three levels of system use with the average cost being $1.07, excluding communication and tape. Its bad points are that it has been in an “almost finished” state for the past year with new features expected; and, it’s difficult to adjust to the logic of the system since one can’t write notes. Some of its virtues are that the pre-order unit was decreased by 1% positions; productivity and flexibility have been increased; it is easier to correct on a CRT than on a typewriter; the availability of an archive tape is helpful; and, there is quick response time of 7-10 seconds to order. Henderson added that, in light of their being Baker & Taylor’s largest academic customer, management and service have been very helpful to OSU.

Scott Bullard opened with the query, “Are PLAS and LIBRIS going down the tubes?” The University of Louisville used BATAB from 1969 to 1980. BATB, an off-line system, wasn’t working, in part, due to increased confusion at the university Computer Center. By 1980 the University of Louisville Libraries was looking for a system that would do the job at a reasonable cost; liberate them from the Computer Center; and, provide a 30day cancellation period. QLAS offered a database of 850,000 monographs; access by a wide variety of search keys; and, orders from Brodart could be done by electronic communication, so no paperwork was necessary. One drawback is that if a record isn’t in the database it has to be put in from scratch. All titles entered as TNFs, i.e. Titles Not Found, can only be retrieved by a unique number. Other drawbacks are that author and title fields are fixed and the system doesn’t retain any record of the price on the screen so some manual checking is still necessary. Of all these, “accounting is perhaps the weakest,” according to Bullard. “OLAS has been successful” in that it has relieved both the Library and the Computer Center. Louisville may be cancelling due to money constraints, since a 123% increase in price was suggested by Brodart at one point. Currently the Library is investigating the possibility of using microcomputers, specifically Radio Shack’s TRS 80 Model 16 with Profile Plus software. Every order will be put in by scratch. The University can purchase this system outright with what it would have paid for PLAS in 6 months. Bullard sees the future of systems like QLAS and LIBRIS as “highly questionable.” “The future,” he says, “is microcomputers.”

After the librarians’ presentations the booksellers made their presentations, commenting on the various systems mentioned, with some general comments.

Ed Lockman started off the comments. Of Nonesuch he said that the only drawback was that his Order Entry Department always had to look at the bottom of the form, but other

26 TYLER MILLER

than that it was easy to read and on only one occasion in a year were duplicate orders received. The name of the ordering institution wasn’t readily ascertainable on OCLc’s “action form” due to its 3x5 format. He thinks the form needs revising. Another problem is that OCLC sends them out alphabetized by libraries. For publishers who can’t do electronic transmission OCLC will prepare a sheet order, which resembles something used 25 years ago and runs out of room in inconvenient places. Neikirk understood this and said that OCLC is very receptive to change. The form size of RLIN is that of an IBM card; order information is adequate; but, they haven’t received a large number of claims yet. They receive many forms from LIBRIS and the yellow copy isn’t always clear. The acronyms used by LIBRIS aren’t mnemonically logical so dealers have to do some research. Brodart is a good system for expediency with a clean 3x5 format.

Jim Cameron’s comments were more general. He says that Academic Book Center will accommodate itself to any system used. Duplicate orders can happen anytime. Vendors prefer to know order and claiming sequence since they are entitled to planning time. Vendors like to know what they can do to get paid early, and Cameron is surprised there aren’t any machine readable invoices yet. Before deciding on a system his advice is to go to the vendors since it is a two-way street.

Don Satisky said there are at least 19 existing automated acquisitions systems (envelope, electronic mail, online interactive, etc.), with varying costs. From a vendor’s standpoint one needs only a terminal. He discussed Blackwell North America’s Easy Access Ordering System and agreed with Bullard that the University of Louisville was wise not to take it. Blackwell North America did a survey on what libraries wanted in a vendor system and found they wanted a $100,000 system, but were willing to pay only $12,000 for it. He thinks bookdealers’ systems have only one more year of existence left. Libraries ought to look into integrated systems (circulation, cataloging, and acquisitions) owing to costs.

Margaret Landesman is the librarian representative on the Booksellers Group. She finds librarians need to inform vendors more. They seem to talk more to publishers. She says that vendors won’t always talk about what is bothering them. At the University of Utah the publisher wasn’t listed on claims on an in-house system and it took six years for a vendor to tell them this. Vendors have been introducing a large number of things but they don’t always inform librarians. There is a need for increased communication between vendors and librarians. Landesman added that accounting functions are uniformly weak or nonexistent. She insists that vendors should be pushed on this issue since bookkeeping problems are difficult-bibliographic information isn’t the only important information.

The rest of the time was take up with informal questions and comments by the panelists and the audience.

All the librarians were asked what paper tiles they still maintained with their systems. Bullard said they keep a file by title of all items ordered so that bibliographic information can be sent to Pre-cataloging and Cataloging. Stevens said they have a title tile for professors and also an accounting file. Neikirk said they keep a manual “bare bones” ledger. For claiming they use a steno pad, since claiming is done spasmodically according to what is old, with no one specifically assigned to the job. Hogan said they eliminated four files and the expenditure file is scheduled to be eliminated. They still file a “temp slip” in the public catalog, but they may eliminate this.

Cameron said he was “fearful” of automatic claiming. Gail Kennedy wanted to see a “claims warning system” to indicate when a claim should be sent out, but without an automatic, irrevocable claim going out.

Integrated systems were brought up. GEAC and DataPhase acquisitions modules are not in

Acquisition of Library Materials DisCussion Group 27

place. CLSI is supposedly installing theirs this year. UTLAS has an acquisitions control system and currently there are two vendors online in Canada, with six expected in the U.S.

Jerry Kline spoke for Innovative Interfaces of Berkeley, California. On-order and in-process records can be searched to see if an item has been received. He brought up other system features, including the fact that the system offers full fund accounting and eliminates paper files. A library can develop its own fields for searching, e.g., imprints. The system is geared for medium to large libraries.

Another question concerned how near vendors were to electronic order transmission. OCLC replied the next calendar year, utilizing BISAC standards. Blackwell North America said many vendors are awaiting the finalized BISAC standards. Blackwell has abandoned selling systems to libraries_ It does have ON-TYME II, which can accept automatic transmission.

A Brodart representative said that users should develop i~ormation on status for bibliographic records. Acquisitions has to use different data from biblio~aphi~ information. Brodart thinks there will always be those who need a straight acquisitions system because it is less expensive than one connected to a bibliographic utility. Neikirk interjected that libraries must consider what they need and what it costs. Brodart replied that they will never compete with OCLC and they’re not meant to. Brodart and Baker & Taylor have large inventories geared to public libraries. Academic libraries pose a more difficult problem to vendors and none are likely to be geared to warehousing for an academic library, said the Brodart representative.

The meeting then came to a close. In summary, it is obvious to point out that no one felt that he or she had a perfect system and, in general, accounting modules were weakest and needed to be developed more fully. Above all, communization between vendors, librarians, and publishers is a must.