- Email: [email protected]
Vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering: optimal conditions
Pergamon Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002) 395– 407
Vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering: optimal conditions Janet L. Flowersa,*, Scott Perryb a
Head of Acquisitions, CB# 3902, Academic Affairs Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890, USA b Assistant Head, Acquisitions Department, University of Chicago Library, Acquisitions Department, 1100 E. 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637-1596, USA
Abstract In response to demands from libraries, a number of library materials vendors have converted their in-house working databases into e-selection and online ordering tools for their customers. Some libraries have embraced these new sources to select titles and then export bibliographic, ordering, and invoice records into their automated acquisitions systems. These libraries have integrated the use of the vendor databases (e.g., GOBI, Collection Manager, Otto-Editions, I libri) into their daily selection and ordering operations. This article will address the forces behind this new approach, some results, the benefits, implications, trade-offs, and optimal conditions for success of this acquisition method. The authors will assess these issues through a more in-depth examination of the experiences at the University of North Carolina Academic Affairs Library and at the University of Chicago Libraries as well as findings in the literature. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Background “Web-based vendor services are transforming and improving many aspects of library acquisitions and collection development work. Online ordering functions present rich possibilities for improving the speed and efficiency of monograph selection as well as for allowing selectors more control. Yet decentralized ordering also presents potential complexities, no matter the size of the library” [1]. Several converging factors have led to the development and use of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering. These factors have * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Flowers), [email protected] (S. Perry). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 7 6 - 2
396
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
made vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering both necessary and feasible. The first factor is the significant decline in the number of staff in acquisitions departments within the past ten years as staff cuts are made or staff members are re-assigned to public services or new services such as web development. This staffing loss has meant that acquisitions librarians needed to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to achieve their goals of acquiring books as quickly as possible. The second factor is that patron’s expectations for delivery times have been modified through the introduction of online services such as those provided by Amazon.com. They now expect that books known to be published and widely available – in 24 hours from Amazon! – should be ordered and made available more quickly than in the past. As Clendenning noted, “With a competitor like Amazon.com, we could no longer say, it takes 30 days to place an order, since ‘What planet are you guys on?’ was what we might hear to that” [2]. Fortunately, the third factor is that the major library materials vendors have accepted the need for an expanded service and have invested considerable resources into developing new technical infrastructures that enable libraries to use vendors’ formerly internal title databases as selection and ordering tools. “In its RFP for a Statewide Approval Plan to serve most academic libraries in Ohio (on a voluntary basis), OhioLINK identified online information and selection as important as the physical delivery of prospective books to be acquired (the usual core definition of an approval plan). In developing a shortlist of vendors to be considered, ability to provide online identification, selection, and (to some degree) reporting served to separate those companies making the shortlist from the other respondents” [3]. More on this can be found in Luther’s article on “Innovations Affecting Us: Second Generation Online Systems from Book Vendors” in the References. Finally in an article by Kay, which describes web-based ordering for libraries, she cautions librarians as follows: “Since vendor Web-based databases and order services are emerging and developing constantly, the library practitioner is well-advised to contact favorite vendors for updates on developments” [4]. This convergence of need identified and opportunity met gives libraries a new approach to acquiring books that may bring considerable benefits. The purpose of this article is to explore these new options and their impact upon the acquisition of library materials.
2. Anticipated benefits from new services As acquisitions librarians have evaluated the option of using these vendors’ services, one goal has been paramount: that of providing faster service for patrons. Librarians anticipated that books would be chosen sooner if selection were done online rather than waiting for the printed selection slips to arrive in the mail and for paper selection forms to be given to acquisitions. They also expected quicker delivery as a result of prompter ordering. These two changes, combined with the possibility of vendor-provided shelf-ready processing, meant that the books should be on the shelves much more quickly than in the past. The experiences at a number of libraries have borne out the validity of these assumptions. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the turn-around time has been reduced by approximately five weeks. Clendenning at the University of Virginia reported that the turn-around there changed dramatically. “In the online slip review and order environment, it is now possible
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
397
for an item to be profiled on GOBI and to be on a library’s shelf ready for a user to check out in three to four weeks . . . This is a vast improvement over the two to six months it once took a new item to reach a user from the time it was published” [5]. The exact improvement is more difficult to measure at University of Chicago since several changes were introduced simultaneously, but the reduction caused by the changes was approximately two to six weeks. One factor behind these dramatic improvements in turn-around time is the development of more efficient internal processes. When compared with the manual steps in traditional firm order processing, one finds that there can be fewer hand-offs to other staff, less manual searching, less manual data entry, more batch work rather than one by one title handling, less filing, and less review of the steps done. The staff savings are more difficult to determine because of the time lapse and the variety of other factors affecting operations. However, at Chicago, the placement of domestic firm orders now requires only slightly more than one FTE whereas six years ago it required at least three. A fringe benefit to the new process is that an acquisitions department can receive electronic invoices with the books if the library’s ILS supports electronic invoicing for monographs, thus decreasing the workload for the accounting department. A typical invoice for fifty individual items can be processed as a single transaction rather than fifty, a great time-saver for the accounting staff. However, perhaps the greatest benefit is the opportunity to re-conceptualize the goals of the acquisitions department by communicating more directly with collection development, accounting and cataloging regarding their needs. The needs may have changed since various practices were begun. This review of all processes can lead to the discovery that there are steps in the current process that are historical and no longer critical to the work of the other departments. These reviews and the ability to look at the complete monographic flow can result in unanticipated side benefits. For example, in the process of analyzing the feasibility of using GobiSelect at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the co-author discovered that some information being conveyed from Acquisitions to Cataloging was no longer really relevant. Learning of these changes removed some constraints with the new approach that could not accommodate all of the former services provided by Acquisitions.
3. Use of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering by selected libraries 3.1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Over the past ten years, the staff in the monographic sections of the Acquisitions Department has shrunk from 18 to 14 in 2002. This decrease, coupled with a late release of the materials budget each year, makes it increasingly difficult to meet increased expectations for timeliness in order placement and receipt. The Library hired R2 Consulting in September 2000 to facilitate a task group’s work to evaluate options for improving the existing firm order processes. Rick Lugg and Ruth Fischer provided excellent leadership in identifying the core functions of the department and the needs required from other departments. The project had a number of ambitious goals, including the following: level out submission and pro-
398
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
cessing of firm order requests; eliminate duplication of effort; get requests into the online system sooner; eliminate backlogs in searching, keying, and order release; eliminate paperbased files in departmental libraries; eliminate re-keying of requests in Acquisitions (after typing by selectors); increase value received from vendor services; reduce the number of steps, participants, and hand-offs in the firm order process; and think critically about how to improve the current process. After going through this exercise with R2, staff quickly agreed upon some compromises in the standard workflows and began using YBP’s GobiSelect process with the Innovative Interfaces’ extended approval plan interface module. At UNC, the basic process is as follows: 1) Selectors select the titles from either notification slips or online in GOBI. 2) A staff member in Collection Development or Acquisitions tags or marks the record to indicate that the title has been selected. 3) Another staff member exports the selection records from GOBI, imports them from YBP’s FTP server, massages the pre-order data, encumbers the order and transmits a BISAC order electronically to YBP or Lindsay and Howes, YBP’s British Division. 4) At the point of shipment, YBP creates a MARC file of bibliographic and invoice data. 5) A staff member in Acquisitions processes the invoice file from YBP and L&H on a weekly basis. This load overlays the bibliographic record and creates an electronic invoice. As is normal with a new process, this one was not without its false starts and bugs and involved considerable consultation with both the technical staff at YBP and Innovative Interfaces. The process has now been internalized into the everyday operations of the department and we intend to extend the same approach to other vendors that offer similar services. Several steps from the manual searching and ordering processes were dropped, including the pre-order searching, keying, and post-receipt updating of bibliographic information. Also through an agreement whereby YBP provides bibliographic slips in the books, the staff no longer produces paper purchase order packs to place in an on-order file. This eliminates the need to file and retrieve the packs, saving time for the student assistants. As a result of more prompt selection and ordering, we are able to process these requests at least three weeks sooner than the firm order requests that go through the normal searching and keying routines. We also are able to pay invoices much more quickly because they can be paid as a batch rather than line by line. There are a number of lessons that the Academic Affairs Library at UNC has learned regarding any process such as this one. They include the following: 1) The tasks required more knowledge than expected, in particular, about the vendor’s database, the many accounts with the vendor, local practices and even keying experience to help with coding. 2) Although YBP’s duplicate detection programs will catch potential duplicates through an ISBN check and even though UNC set up separate accounts for those cases when duplication is always acceptable, the resolution of the duplicates detected must still be done manually by a staff member. 3) Because of the complexity and many details, there must be clear documentation and training. 4) It is absolutely critical that there be logs of the files of selections and invoices exported to prevent overlooking a file or downloading one twice. 5) There were impacts upon other parts of the acquisitions operation that were not expected, e.g., the statistics when we forgot to set the template for volumes thus resulting in our not capturing any data regarding these orders until we figured out what was wrong. 6) Staff must be very accurate and
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
399
thorough in their retrieval and updating of the information because there is no review. 7) Staff not directly involved must be informed or they will draw false conclusions about problems that have nothing to do with the new method. 8) Details are vital. For example, UNC was relying upon YBP to indicate the location code on the bibliographic slips sent in the books. Their coding was for four characters; however, our location codes are five. The importance of this detail was overlooked until we received some juvenile books for the School of Information and Library Science. As these are classified using a completely different system, that last character was essential; therefore, YBP made a programming change to accommodate this need for precision. Acquisitions resolved the issues noted above; however, the staffing implications have been somewhat more difficult to address. The process involves a very complex set of instructions that require the expertise of higher-level staff. Also, the dropping of the searching step has resulted in moving the detection and resolution of the potential duplicates later in the process after much work has been done, as compared with the earlier searching process whereby student assistants often identified duplicates early in the process. There are new costs, of course, for the vendor’s connectivity services and technological developments although thus far they have been quite reasonable. Nonetheless, the drawbacks noted above led this co-author to question whether this new approach was really worth the results. This concern became one motivating factor behind this article as an attempt to better understand how to more fully maximize the use of the technologies to achieve our goals by analysis and comparison with other institution’s practices. 3.2. University of Chicago Libraries The impetus for use of the vendor databases at the University of Chicago was tied in with system migration and a desire to reduce processing time. At Chicago the path followed for a firm order has been designed to take advantage of the capabilities of vendor databases to reduce handling and manual intervention while increasing accuracy. An order begins its life either as a selection entered via the web interface by the selector, or, far less commonly, as a paper source submitted to the Acquisitions Department. Staff in Acquisitions retrieve the sets of selected records, usually by the date selected, selector or fund, confirm that the correct account has been supplied, that the fund has money available and that the order has all other necessary data. The order is processed by a simple push of the “order” button if the order appears to be an order for a first copy. For orders submitted in paper, staff retrieve the title in the vendor database and enter the relevant information such as fund and account and process with the order. The only searching done prior to submitting the order is for exceptional cases, such as an indication of an earlier edition or if the vendor database indicates duplication. All of the vendors provide order-level records as a batch file that is then either retrieved via FTP or emailed as an attachment. The records with order level data and brief bibliographic data are loaded into a database containing component parts such as the ISBNs, author, title, etc. and are also loaded into the local acquisitions system. A locallydeveloped program is run against the database and reports duplicates based on ISBN or title, as well as other conditions, such as the presence of a series statement, that require a manual search of the catalog. Under this procedure, staff members take action only on titles that the
400
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
system has identified as problematic. On receipt, the program provides similar groups of reports showing special handling/processing instructions or titles requiring local cutters. The structure and design of the workflow is intended to draw attention to problematic or anomalous orders, allowing staff to spend their time on those titles rather than a manual check of each request. The YBP and some of the Casalini titles arrive with a record including LC classification and at least one subject heading. In some cases the bibliographic record supplied with the books becomes the final catalog record, primarily when the dealer supplies DLC copy. In other cases the record supplied is viewed as less complete or provisional. Since the University of Chicago has decided to use these records as temporary catalog entries and to accept the vendor-supplied classification in all cases, pieces are routed directly to shelf-preparation and made available to patrons almost immediately upon receipt. This process takes two working days at most. The provisional bibliographic records are periodically sent to a utility which supplies a higher-level record when available. Only a small residue is ultimately cataloged locally. In the case of other vendors, the bibliographic records returned with shipments are generally identical to the order confirmation records except for the addition of invoice information and require local cataloging before the books can be made available. Overall the model works very well for the University of Chicago with more than 50% of all firm orders now being placed this way. 3.3. Other libraries In addition to the two libraries noted above, several other libraries have also taken advantage of the services provided by the vendors. Clendenning at the University of Virginia Library reported that “The library’s streamlining of acquisitions, cataloging, and collection development has allowed UVa staff to re-focus their work toward direct service to users. Staff go to great lengths to . . . fill and even deliver rush orders . . .” [6]. Stephens at Georgia State University reported that “When YBP ships the ordered books, cataloging records and EDIFACT invoices are also supplied.” . . .“Thus, over the past year, Pullen Library of Georgia State University has significantly streamlined their approval and ordering workflows by taking advantage of a wide spectrum of tools available from YBP and Endeavor” [7]. Vanderbilt reports that they are using both Collection Manager (from Blackwells) and GOBI because selectors chose different vendors for their approval plans. Wilson described the streamlining process as follows: that “This process streamlines our order/receipt process significantly. Where it once took 3 people (and sometimes several days) to handle the order request from start to finish, (one to check for duplication and bring in a bib record, the second to select the vendor, and the third to manually create the order record), it now takes only one. One verifier checks our holdings for duplication and then immediately orders the material online (The rest is Like Magic.)” [8]. The University of Washington is using Collection Manager in much the same way as the other libraries noted here [9]. At Oregon State University, Brumley noted, “Keeping the librarians informed of the status of their requests has always been an issue. That interim period, referred to here as “the pipeline” between a librarian’s request and placement of an order is much more in focus with CM. Librarians are much more able to track the progress of their selections” [10].
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
401
4. Trade-offs from UNC’s perspective In a process that relies more upon vendor-provided information and less upon the local standards, there are obviously some trade-offs that must be considered. In the case of UNC Chapel Hill, there has been some loss of quality control in the bibliographic records. Even though we do not have an integrated system, we do have reasonably high keying standards for the data in the INNOPAC database. Now, we have three types of records going into the database: ones that are keyed, CatShip records (brief cataloging records) from YBP for our approval plans and GobiShip records which are merely the ordering data from GOBI and may or may not match either MARC or local standards. These differences in data have resulted in some confusion for staff but have not significantly affected our ability to obtain the correct material. Another trade-off, and one that UNC decided to accept, was the possibility of increased duplication of titles as a result of the elimination of pre-searching. While we have worked closely with YBP to establish separate accounts for the two libraries that typically order added copies (the North Carolina Collection and the Undergraduate Library), we still find that we are sometimes ordering copies for two branch libraries when one copy would have been preferred. This issue has not been problematic because our funding has been sufficient for the past several years. Now, however, the state of North Carolina is dealing with a budget crisis and the library materials budget may be cut dramatically. In that case, unintentional duplication will be less acceptable. As mentioned earlier, another trade-off has been that the staff doing the actual process must be at a higher level. Despite considerable efforts to inform staff of the changes, those not most closely involved with the process have found that the records are confusing and the process has introduced yet another level of complexity and yet another possible backlog (if we must hold requests due to funding concerns) that needs to be included in our evaluation of budgets and impending workloads. In addition, the staff working with the process (including selectors) must be intimately aware of the database, the codes, and how the process works, thus adding additional training needs. Perhaps the greatest concern in this scenario is that it ties the library even more closely to a particular vendor as the vendor’s services become integrated into the local workflows. As long as the vendor is providing good service, this should not be a problem; however, if there is a deterioration of service, there is a much greater investment and disruption than there would have been with just switching from one book vendor who provided books to another one who provided books. Libraries need to be very careful in their selection of vendors and services because of this increased dependence upon the vendor in achieving its local goals. Also, from the perspective of competition, taking advantage of these services makes it much more difficult for a vendor not currently being used to gain the business of this customer. None of the concerns noted above are insurmountable. The quality control issue is primarily an educational one whereby staff members learn to ignore data that looks strange and move on. The on-order/in process file is, of course, an ephemeral file that is purged once the material has been received, paid for, and cataloged. Having higher-level staff handle the tasks seems unavoidable in our case because of the need for encumbrance oversight. The multiple workflows can be justified if there is a critical mass going through the process so
402
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
that at least there is enough volume to justify the investment. Staff training addresses the increased number of databases to master. Finally, the reliance upon one vendor and the critical implications for the Library’s success can and should be addressed through open, frank, and frequent communication with the vendor regarding service requirements.
5. Issues from University of Chicago’s perspective From the perspective of the University of Chicago there were few trade-offs and many positive developments from the implementation of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering. Indeed, some issues that were expected to present a problem became a positive: YBP order confirmation records are supplied in upper case, making them very distinctive in the OPAC. While some were initially bothered by this variation from standards, others saw a benefit in the rapid ability to determine that a citation in the OPAC is for something on order. Perhaps the most time-consuming part of the process was laying the groundwork for a different way of doing business. Work with all selectors organized by broad discipline, such as social sciences, was done in small groups after a representative from each of the disciplines had been involved earlier in the process. All were introduced to GOBI and encouraged to use it, but were also allowed to continue to submit paper orders. In consultation with collection development and cataloging staff the areas of the classification schedule requiring local cutters were greatly reduced in order to maximize the acceptance of records supplied by YBP thereby making material available sooner and reducing the need for intervention by higher-level staff. A byproduct of this discussion was that the changes applied to all records regardless of source thus decreasing processing time for all materials not just those being acquired using vendor. The support of systems staff to answer questions about loading records into the database and to help in problem resolution during the start-up phase was extremely helpful. Careful consultation and communication with the vendors about desired enhancements and changes in functionality are essential to the ongoing process. Although it remains a concern that one is tied a bit more tightly to a specific vendor, there are ways of ameliorating this including continued discussions with the vendor about service issues and with alternative vendors about options. With the differences between the various vendors primarily being in content and the look of the interfaces, application of the same basic workflow model to several additional vendors is relatively simple and requires far less time than setting up the first vendor.
6. Comparison: uses of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering at UNC and University of Chicago Table 1 describes the different steps in the processes used by the two libraries. It gives a good overview of how processes may be developed and enables the co-authors to see where Chicago is taking greater advantage of technology and thus to the final conclusions regarding optimal conditions for using vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering.
Table 1 Comparison of processes at UNC and University of Chicago Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Chicago
Materials Budget for Monographs (firm and approval) Start Date of First Use Library Materials Vendors Used
Ca. $2 million from state funding
Ca. $2.9 million
November, 2000 YBP and Lindsay and Howes
Number of orders processed through Vendor-Assisted E-Selection and Online Ordering Automated Acquisitions Serials Control System Online Public Access Catalog Selection
Ca, 10,000 in FY 2001-2002
1996 ATC (1998), Casalini (1998), Harrassowitz (2000), YBP and Lindsay and Howes (1996) Ca. 28,100 in FY 2001-2002
Tagging
Batch Exporting of Selection/Order Records Batch Importing of Selection/Order Records Order release
Order transmission Electronic Invoice Load Receipt of Material
Payment of Electronic Invoices Cataloging of Books
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (not integrated with OPAC) DRA Most selectors still use paper notification slips Most selectors pass along slips for other staff to tag Done by a high-level staff member Done by a high-level staff member Done title by title with some data being edited; must be done to ensure adequate funding and encumbrance before official order sent to vendor Sent electronically to YBP and Lindsay and Howes as batch process Done by a high-level staff member Treated like other material except expedited because there is no pack to pull so can be ready for receipt more quickly Done by Library Accounting in batches No special treatment; sent to Copy Cataloging
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (not integrated with OPAC) Horizon Most selectors use online notification slips, although some continue to use paper slips. Most selectors tag directly via the vendor’s web interface, some pass along paper slips for ordering by Acquisitions staff (which skip the “Tagging” process) Not done. This follows order transmission/release. Done title by title on vendor website with changes to accounts, etc. as necessary. Done by student and clerical staff. Order transmission ⫽ order release
403
Done by a clerical staff member. YBP expedited—to labeling from Acquisitions within 48 hours of receipt by primarily student staff; ATC, Casalini, Harrassowitz all processed as normal material with the exception of filters used to identify anomalies. Done by Acquisitions Payments in batches or singly. Bibliographic records accepted without enhancement and all call numbers accepted unless they are in areas still cuttered locally (YBP). No special treatment for other vendors.
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
Process
404
Process
Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Chicago
Shelf-ready Processing
Not used
Duplication Queries Relationship with Library Materials Vendor Programming Support
Handled by high-level staff member Ongoing communication Ongoing, very little. Technical advice from Systems during start-up Working database record from YBP
Casalini affixes barcode and inserts theft detection strip, otherwise not used Handled by a clerical staff member Ongoing communication. Ongoing, very little. Technical advice from Systems during start-up. Working database record (order confirmations). Full record (receipt records) from YBP. Done automatically as part of loading of the record set and with reliance on vendor de-duplication. Some manual searches done such as series statements.
Level of bibliographic record provided Searching
Pre-searching is done for expensive orders; reliance on vendor for duplication identification; manual search to resolve dup queries from vendor
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
Table 1 Comparison of processes at UNC and University of Chicago
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
405
7. Optimal conditions for using vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering Clearly, there must be a high-level service ethic driving the processes so that new ways will be tried in the interest of improving service to patrons. There must also be a critical mass of material from vendors to warrant a separate work stream for the material being acquired. In addition, staff within the organization must be receptive and open to making changes and taking risks in order for new approaches, such as the ones outlined in this article, to be successful. Also, as the process involves close collaboration among selectors, Acquisitions, and the vendors, there must be a high level of trust and communication to ensure that the needs of all parties are being heard and addressed. Each party must have a level of trust in the reliability of the technology being used, in the data provided, in the vendors’ capabilities, and in the willingness of both selectors and acquisitions staff to do their parts in the process as agreed upon. Another fundamental principle that will help ensure success is how the automation is approached. If there is an approach by goals rather than by an attempt to replicate all steps in the existing manual system, the Library will be able to identify steps to eliminate without serious loss and will be able to take fuller advantage of the capabilities offered by the vendors. As evidenced by the situations at the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, and Georgia State, there must be a willingness to transform the entire technical services process to maximize the benefits. Lugg advises librarians to identify the mainstream of materials, the ones that have elements in common in order to batch them, and then eliminate the individual handling and decision-making typical of many technical processing operations where every item has been treated as unique under the traditional expert approach. Lugg notes, “If the goal is to design and staff for a scalable, production-oriented workflow, the organization must be willing to rely on a process rather than a person to ensure results” [11]. At the University of Chicago, emphasizing the use of automated processes to identify anomalous issues (e.g., duplication, special handling, local classification needs, etc.) is a basic principle. Often these processes are done by a person looking at all records for anomalies. Instead, one can use technology to direct a person to the anomalous titles while the majority of titles flow through with little manual intervention. The basic principle is to let a machine do what a machine does best (e.g., filtering through large quantities of data) while freeing staff to deal with issues that require more flexibility. It is important to note that, while technology offers the opportunity for selectors to retrieve materials earlier than paper slips, it also allows for different paths of retrieval. These, along with timeliness, are two very potent reasons for use of electronic selection. Vendors continue to add additional searching capabilities to their systems and access to information that was previously only accessible via a letter (in the not so distant past), phone call or e-mail to the customer service representative. Also, because the use of this method of acquisitions affects the information and paperwork (if any) provided to Cataloging, there must be a clear understanding regarding their needs. There also must be a high comfort level with automation among large numbers of technical services and collection development staff. Also, as the use of the vendor-assisted approach is expanded to multiple vendors, it is essential that those vendors have reliable systems that are intuitive and easy-to-use to enable staff to easily master the various setups and still be
406
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
highly productive. If all of these conditions are present, the chances for success with vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering are very promising.
Bibliography Brown, L. (April 1999). The acquisitions workstation– collection development style. Against the Grain, 11 (2), 1. Breaux, A. M., & Flowers, J. A GobiWorks profile: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/ GobiProfile_files/chapelhillprofile.htm. Edwards, S., & DiRenzo, S. (November 22, 1999). To GOBI or not to GOBI: The University of Akron Libraries Experience Implementing GobiSelect. Online. ALAO 1999 Annual Conference Columbus, OH. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http:// www3.uakron.edu/library/ulsys/presentations/gobi-alao99/index.html. Fennessy, E., & Miraglia, K. (December 1997-January 1998). On the street. Against the Grain, 9 (6), 80. Fischer, R., & Lugg, R. (September 2001). I, user—the selector in the garden. Against the Grain, 13 (4), 38. Flowers, J. (2001). And they were there: reports of meetings: YBP’s GOBI user’s group meeting. Against the Grain, 13 (2), 68 –70. Flowers, J. (1999). Saving time and trees without getting lost in the woods: Electronic selection at the University of Chicago. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 23 (2), 212–213. Heller, A., & Lorenzen, E. (1999). Online ordering: making its mark. Library Journal, 124 (14), 153–158. Hounshell, J. (March 1999). Electronic ordering of monographs, part I: Blackwell’s Collection Manager. Technical Services Law Librarian, 24 (3). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/24-03/acq.htm. Kelly, G. (1995). Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): the exchange of ordering, claiming, and invoice information from a library perspective. Collection Management, 19 (3/4), 77–94. Lau, F. (1998?). Workflow support systems: the new mission of academic booksellers. Online. International Conference on New Missions of Academic Libraries in the 21st Century, Beijing, China, October 25–28, 1998. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/98conf/paper/a/RedmanLau.htm. Luther, J. (November 1997). Innovations affecting us: second generation online systems from book vendors. Against the Grain, 9 (5), 88. Marshall, D. L. (1993). The Internet connection for electronic ordering. Computers in Libraries, 13 (3), 26 –28. McNair, M., & Miller, D. (June 1999). Online selection tools. Against the Grain, 11 (3), 58. Nardini, R. (2001). Issues in vendor/library relations— hamburgers, minivans, and databases: a case study. Against the Grain, 13 (5), 89, 91. Schwarz, M. (June 1999). Electronic ordering of monographs part II: Yankee Book
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
407
Peddler’s GOBI. Online. Technical Services Law Librarian, 24 (4). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/24-04/acq.htm. Wicks, D. A., Bartolo, L., & Swords, D. (2001). Four birds with one stone: collaboration in collection development. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 25 (4), 473– 483. Withers, R. (December 2000-January 2001). Biz of acq—increasing your efficiency with Internet resources. Against the Grain, 9 (6), 1.
References [1] Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. R. Richards. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 85. [2] Clendenning (January 2001). Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 86. [3] Mulliner, K. (November 1998). E-commerce—a collection development perspective – Part 1 – Identification and selection. Against the Grain, 10 (5), 15, 18. [4] Kay, M. (April 2000). Web-based ordering for libraries. Against the Grain, 12 (2), 38. [5] Clendenning (December 2000-January 2001). Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 86. [6] Breaux A. M., Clendenning. A GobiWorks profile: University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/GobiProfile_files/uvirginiaprofile.htm. 2001. [7] Breaux A. M., Stephens J., & Anderson D. A GobiWorks profile: Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/GobiProfile_files/georgiaprofile.htm. 2001. [8] Wilson M. E. E-mail correspondence from Mary Ellen Wilson to Janet L. Flowers 7/3/02. [9] Coats J. E-mail correspondence from Jackie Coats to Janet L. Flowers 7/1/02. [10] Brumley R. E-mail from Richard Brumley to Janet L. Flowers July 2, 2002. [11] Fischer, R., & Lugg, R. (April 2002). I, user – down by the ol’ mainstream: backlogs and bottlenecks. Against the Grain, 14 (2), 74.
Vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering: optimal conditions Janet L. Flowersa,*, Scott Perryb a
Head of Acquisitions, CB# 3902, Academic Affairs Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890, USA b Assistant Head, Acquisitions Department, University of Chicago Library, Acquisitions Department, 1100 E. 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637-1596, USA
Abstract In response to demands from libraries, a number of library materials vendors have converted their in-house working databases into e-selection and online ordering tools for their customers. Some libraries have embraced these new sources to select titles and then export bibliographic, ordering, and invoice records into their automated acquisitions systems. These libraries have integrated the use of the vendor databases (e.g., GOBI, Collection Manager, Otto-Editions, I libri) into their daily selection and ordering operations. This article will address the forces behind this new approach, some results, the benefits, implications, trade-offs, and optimal conditions for success of this acquisition method. The authors will assess these issues through a more in-depth examination of the experiences at the University of North Carolina Academic Affairs Library and at the University of Chicago Libraries as well as findings in the literature. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Background “Web-based vendor services are transforming and improving many aspects of library acquisitions and collection development work. Online ordering functions present rich possibilities for improving the speed and efficiency of monograph selection as well as for allowing selectors more control. Yet decentralized ordering also presents potential complexities, no matter the size of the library” [1]. Several converging factors have led to the development and use of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering. These factors have * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Flowers), [email protected] (S. Perry). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 7 6 - 2
396
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
made vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering both necessary and feasible. The first factor is the significant decline in the number of staff in acquisitions departments within the past ten years as staff cuts are made or staff members are re-assigned to public services or new services such as web development. This staffing loss has meant that acquisitions librarians needed to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to achieve their goals of acquiring books as quickly as possible. The second factor is that patron’s expectations for delivery times have been modified through the introduction of online services such as those provided by Amazon.com. They now expect that books known to be published and widely available – in 24 hours from Amazon! – should be ordered and made available more quickly than in the past. As Clendenning noted, “With a competitor like Amazon.com, we could no longer say, it takes 30 days to place an order, since ‘What planet are you guys on?’ was what we might hear to that” [2]. Fortunately, the third factor is that the major library materials vendors have accepted the need for an expanded service and have invested considerable resources into developing new technical infrastructures that enable libraries to use vendors’ formerly internal title databases as selection and ordering tools. “In its RFP for a Statewide Approval Plan to serve most academic libraries in Ohio (on a voluntary basis), OhioLINK identified online information and selection as important as the physical delivery of prospective books to be acquired (the usual core definition of an approval plan). In developing a shortlist of vendors to be considered, ability to provide online identification, selection, and (to some degree) reporting served to separate those companies making the shortlist from the other respondents” [3]. More on this can be found in Luther’s article on “Innovations Affecting Us: Second Generation Online Systems from Book Vendors” in the References. Finally in an article by Kay, which describes web-based ordering for libraries, she cautions librarians as follows: “Since vendor Web-based databases and order services are emerging and developing constantly, the library practitioner is well-advised to contact favorite vendors for updates on developments” [4]. This convergence of need identified and opportunity met gives libraries a new approach to acquiring books that may bring considerable benefits. The purpose of this article is to explore these new options and their impact upon the acquisition of library materials.
2. Anticipated benefits from new services As acquisitions librarians have evaluated the option of using these vendors’ services, one goal has been paramount: that of providing faster service for patrons. Librarians anticipated that books would be chosen sooner if selection were done online rather than waiting for the printed selection slips to arrive in the mail and for paper selection forms to be given to acquisitions. They also expected quicker delivery as a result of prompter ordering. These two changes, combined with the possibility of vendor-provided shelf-ready processing, meant that the books should be on the shelves much more quickly than in the past. The experiences at a number of libraries have borne out the validity of these assumptions. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the turn-around time has been reduced by approximately five weeks. Clendenning at the University of Virginia reported that the turn-around there changed dramatically. “In the online slip review and order environment, it is now possible
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
397
for an item to be profiled on GOBI and to be on a library’s shelf ready for a user to check out in three to four weeks . . . This is a vast improvement over the two to six months it once took a new item to reach a user from the time it was published” [5]. The exact improvement is more difficult to measure at University of Chicago since several changes were introduced simultaneously, but the reduction caused by the changes was approximately two to six weeks. One factor behind these dramatic improvements in turn-around time is the development of more efficient internal processes. When compared with the manual steps in traditional firm order processing, one finds that there can be fewer hand-offs to other staff, less manual searching, less manual data entry, more batch work rather than one by one title handling, less filing, and less review of the steps done. The staff savings are more difficult to determine because of the time lapse and the variety of other factors affecting operations. However, at Chicago, the placement of domestic firm orders now requires only slightly more than one FTE whereas six years ago it required at least three. A fringe benefit to the new process is that an acquisitions department can receive electronic invoices with the books if the library’s ILS supports electronic invoicing for monographs, thus decreasing the workload for the accounting department. A typical invoice for fifty individual items can be processed as a single transaction rather than fifty, a great time-saver for the accounting staff. However, perhaps the greatest benefit is the opportunity to re-conceptualize the goals of the acquisitions department by communicating more directly with collection development, accounting and cataloging regarding their needs. The needs may have changed since various practices were begun. This review of all processes can lead to the discovery that there are steps in the current process that are historical and no longer critical to the work of the other departments. These reviews and the ability to look at the complete monographic flow can result in unanticipated side benefits. For example, in the process of analyzing the feasibility of using GobiSelect at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the co-author discovered that some information being conveyed from Acquisitions to Cataloging was no longer really relevant. Learning of these changes removed some constraints with the new approach that could not accommodate all of the former services provided by Acquisitions.
3. Use of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering by selected libraries 3.1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Over the past ten years, the staff in the monographic sections of the Acquisitions Department has shrunk from 18 to 14 in 2002. This decrease, coupled with a late release of the materials budget each year, makes it increasingly difficult to meet increased expectations for timeliness in order placement and receipt. The Library hired R2 Consulting in September 2000 to facilitate a task group’s work to evaluate options for improving the existing firm order processes. Rick Lugg and Ruth Fischer provided excellent leadership in identifying the core functions of the department and the needs required from other departments. The project had a number of ambitious goals, including the following: level out submission and pro-
398
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
cessing of firm order requests; eliminate duplication of effort; get requests into the online system sooner; eliminate backlogs in searching, keying, and order release; eliminate paperbased files in departmental libraries; eliminate re-keying of requests in Acquisitions (after typing by selectors); increase value received from vendor services; reduce the number of steps, participants, and hand-offs in the firm order process; and think critically about how to improve the current process. After going through this exercise with R2, staff quickly agreed upon some compromises in the standard workflows and began using YBP’s GobiSelect process with the Innovative Interfaces’ extended approval plan interface module. At UNC, the basic process is as follows: 1) Selectors select the titles from either notification slips or online in GOBI. 2) A staff member in Collection Development or Acquisitions tags or marks the record to indicate that the title has been selected. 3) Another staff member exports the selection records from GOBI, imports them from YBP’s FTP server, massages the pre-order data, encumbers the order and transmits a BISAC order electronically to YBP or Lindsay and Howes, YBP’s British Division. 4) At the point of shipment, YBP creates a MARC file of bibliographic and invoice data. 5) A staff member in Acquisitions processes the invoice file from YBP and L&H on a weekly basis. This load overlays the bibliographic record and creates an electronic invoice. As is normal with a new process, this one was not without its false starts and bugs and involved considerable consultation with both the technical staff at YBP and Innovative Interfaces. The process has now been internalized into the everyday operations of the department and we intend to extend the same approach to other vendors that offer similar services. Several steps from the manual searching and ordering processes were dropped, including the pre-order searching, keying, and post-receipt updating of bibliographic information. Also through an agreement whereby YBP provides bibliographic slips in the books, the staff no longer produces paper purchase order packs to place in an on-order file. This eliminates the need to file and retrieve the packs, saving time for the student assistants. As a result of more prompt selection and ordering, we are able to process these requests at least three weeks sooner than the firm order requests that go through the normal searching and keying routines. We also are able to pay invoices much more quickly because they can be paid as a batch rather than line by line. There are a number of lessons that the Academic Affairs Library at UNC has learned regarding any process such as this one. They include the following: 1) The tasks required more knowledge than expected, in particular, about the vendor’s database, the many accounts with the vendor, local practices and even keying experience to help with coding. 2) Although YBP’s duplicate detection programs will catch potential duplicates through an ISBN check and even though UNC set up separate accounts for those cases when duplication is always acceptable, the resolution of the duplicates detected must still be done manually by a staff member. 3) Because of the complexity and many details, there must be clear documentation and training. 4) It is absolutely critical that there be logs of the files of selections and invoices exported to prevent overlooking a file or downloading one twice. 5) There were impacts upon other parts of the acquisitions operation that were not expected, e.g., the statistics when we forgot to set the template for volumes thus resulting in our not capturing any data regarding these orders until we figured out what was wrong. 6) Staff must be very accurate and
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
399
thorough in their retrieval and updating of the information because there is no review. 7) Staff not directly involved must be informed or they will draw false conclusions about problems that have nothing to do with the new method. 8) Details are vital. For example, UNC was relying upon YBP to indicate the location code on the bibliographic slips sent in the books. Their coding was for four characters; however, our location codes are five. The importance of this detail was overlooked until we received some juvenile books for the School of Information and Library Science. As these are classified using a completely different system, that last character was essential; therefore, YBP made a programming change to accommodate this need for precision. Acquisitions resolved the issues noted above; however, the staffing implications have been somewhat more difficult to address. The process involves a very complex set of instructions that require the expertise of higher-level staff. Also, the dropping of the searching step has resulted in moving the detection and resolution of the potential duplicates later in the process after much work has been done, as compared with the earlier searching process whereby student assistants often identified duplicates early in the process. There are new costs, of course, for the vendor’s connectivity services and technological developments although thus far they have been quite reasonable. Nonetheless, the drawbacks noted above led this co-author to question whether this new approach was really worth the results. This concern became one motivating factor behind this article as an attempt to better understand how to more fully maximize the use of the technologies to achieve our goals by analysis and comparison with other institution’s practices. 3.2. University of Chicago Libraries The impetus for use of the vendor databases at the University of Chicago was tied in with system migration and a desire to reduce processing time. At Chicago the path followed for a firm order has been designed to take advantage of the capabilities of vendor databases to reduce handling and manual intervention while increasing accuracy. An order begins its life either as a selection entered via the web interface by the selector, or, far less commonly, as a paper source submitted to the Acquisitions Department. Staff in Acquisitions retrieve the sets of selected records, usually by the date selected, selector or fund, confirm that the correct account has been supplied, that the fund has money available and that the order has all other necessary data. The order is processed by a simple push of the “order” button if the order appears to be an order for a first copy. For orders submitted in paper, staff retrieve the title in the vendor database and enter the relevant information such as fund and account and process with the order. The only searching done prior to submitting the order is for exceptional cases, such as an indication of an earlier edition or if the vendor database indicates duplication. All of the vendors provide order-level records as a batch file that is then either retrieved via FTP or emailed as an attachment. The records with order level data and brief bibliographic data are loaded into a database containing component parts such as the ISBNs, author, title, etc. and are also loaded into the local acquisitions system. A locallydeveloped program is run against the database and reports duplicates based on ISBN or title, as well as other conditions, such as the presence of a series statement, that require a manual search of the catalog. Under this procedure, staff members take action only on titles that the
400
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
system has identified as problematic. On receipt, the program provides similar groups of reports showing special handling/processing instructions or titles requiring local cutters. The structure and design of the workflow is intended to draw attention to problematic or anomalous orders, allowing staff to spend their time on those titles rather than a manual check of each request. The YBP and some of the Casalini titles arrive with a record including LC classification and at least one subject heading. In some cases the bibliographic record supplied with the books becomes the final catalog record, primarily when the dealer supplies DLC copy. In other cases the record supplied is viewed as less complete or provisional. Since the University of Chicago has decided to use these records as temporary catalog entries and to accept the vendor-supplied classification in all cases, pieces are routed directly to shelf-preparation and made available to patrons almost immediately upon receipt. This process takes two working days at most. The provisional bibliographic records are periodically sent to a utility which supplies a higher-level record when available. Only a small residue is ultimately cataloged locally. In the case of other vendors, the bibliographic records returned with shipments are generally identical to the order confirmation records except for the addition of invoice information and require local cataloging before the books can be made available. Overall the model works very well for the University of Chicago with more than 50% of all firm orders now being placed this way. 3.3. Other libraries In addition to the two libraries noted above, several other libraries have also taken advantage of the services provided by the vendors. Clendenning at the University of Virginia Library reported that “The library’s streamlining of acquisitions, cataloging, and collection development has allowed UVa staff to re-focus their work toward direct service to users. Staff go to great lengths to . . . fill and even deliver rush orders . . .” [6]. Stephens at Georgia State University reported that “When YBP ships the ordered books, cataloging records and EDIFACT invoices are also supplied.” . . .“Thus, over the past year, Pullen Library of Georgia State University has significantly streamlined their approval and ordering workflows by taking advantage of a wide spectrum of tools available from YBP and Endeavor” [7]. Vanderbilt reports that they are using both Collection Manager (from Blackwells) and GOBI because selectors chose different vendors for their approval plans. Wilson described the streamlining process as follows: that “This process streamlines our order/receipt process significantly. Where it once took 3 people (and sometimes several days) to handle the order request from start to finish, (one to check for duplication and bring in a bib record, the second to select the vendor, and the third to manually create the order record), it now takes only one. One verifier checks our holdings for duplication and then immediately orders the material online (The rest is Like Magic.)” [8]. The University of Washington is using Collection Manager in much the same way as the other libraries noted here [9]. At Oregon State University, Brumley noted, “Keeping the librarians informed of the status of their requests has always been an issue. That interim period, referred to here as “the pipeline” between a librarian’s request and placement of an order is much more in focus with CM. Librarians are much more able to track the progress of their selections” [10].
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
401
4. Trade-offs from UNC’s perspective In a process that relies more upon vendor-provided information and less upon the local standards, there are obviously some trade-offs that must be considered. In the case of UNC Chapel Hill, there has been some loss of quality control in the bibliographic records. Even though we do not have an integrated system, we do have reasonably high keying standards for the data in the INNOPAC database. Now, we have three types of records going into the database: ones that are keyed, CatShip records (brief cataloging records) from YBP for our approval plans and GobiShip records which are merely the ordering data from GOBI and may or may not match either MARC or local standards. These differences in data have resulted in some confusion for staff but have not significantly affected our ability to obtain the correct material. Another trade-off, and one that UNC decided to accept, was the possibility of increased duplication of titles as a result of the elimination of pre-searching. While we have worked closely with YBP to establish separate accounts for the two libraries that typically order added copies (the North Carolina Collection and the Undergraduate Library), we still find that we are sometimes ordering copies for two branch libraries when one copy would have been preferred. This issue has not been problematic because our funding has been sufficient for the past several years. Now, however, the state of North Carolina is dealing with a budget crisis and the library materials budget may be cut dramatically. In that case, unintentional duplication will be less acceptable. As mentioned earlier, another trade-off has been that the staff doing the actual process must be at a higher level. Despite considerable efforts to inform staff of the changes, those not most closely involved with the process have found that the records are confusing and the process has introduced yet another level of complexity and yet another possible backlog (if we must hold requests due to funding concerns) that needs to be included in our evaluation of budgets and impending workloads. In addition, the staff working with the process (including selectors) must be intimately aware of the database, the codes, and how the process works, thus adding additional training needs. Perhaps the greatest concern in this scenario is that it ties the library even more closely to a particular vendor as the vendor’s services become integrated into the local workflows. As long as the vendor is providing good service, this should not be a problem; however, if there is a deterioration of service, there is a much greater investment and disruption than there would have been with just switching from one book vendor who provided books to another one who provided books. Libraries need to be very careful in their selection of vendors and services because of this increased dependence upon the vendor in achieving its local goals. Also, from the perspective of competition, taking advantage of these services makes it much more difficult for a vendor not currently being used to gain the business of this customer. None of the concerns noted above are insurmountable. The quality control issue is primarily an educational one whereby staff members learn to ignore data that looks strange and move on. The on-order/in process file is, of course, an ephemeral file that is purged once the material has been received, paid for, and cataloged. Having higher-level staff handle the tasks seems unavoidable in our case because of the need for encumbrance oversight. The multiple workflows can be justified if there is a critical mass going through the process so
402
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
that at least there is enough volume to justify the investment. Staff training addresses the increased number of databases to master. Finally, the reliance upon one vendor and the critical implications for the Library’s success can and should be addressed through open, frank, and frequent communication with the vendor regarding service requirements.
5. Issues from University of Chicago’s perspective From the perspective of the University of Chicago there were few trade-offs and many positive developments from the implementation of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering. Indeed, some issues that were expected to present a problem became a positive: YBP order confirmation records are supplied in upper case, making them very distinctive in the OPAC. While some were initially bothered by this variation from standards, others saw a benefit in the rapid ability to determine that a citation in the OPAC is for something on order. Perhaps the most time-consuming part of the process was laying the groundwork for a different way of doing business. Work with all selectors organized by broad discipline, such as social sciences, was done in small groups after a representative from each of the disciplines had been involved earlier in the process. All were introduced to GOBI and encouraged to use it, but were also allowed to continue to submit paper orders. In consultation with collection development and cataloging staff the areas of the classification schedule requiring local cutters were greatly reduced in order to maximize the acceptance of records supplied by YBP thereby making material available sooner and reducing the need for intervention by higher-level staff. A byproduct of this discussion was that the changes applied to all records regardless of source thus decreasing processing time for all materials not just those being acquired using vendor. The support of systems staff to answer questions about loading records into the database and to help in problem resolution during the start-up phase was extremely helpful. Careful consultation and communication with the vendors about desired enhancements and changes in functionality are essential to the ongoing process. Although it remains a concern that one is tied a bit more tightly to a specific vendor, there are ways of ameliorating this including continued discussions with the vendor about service issues and with alternative vendors about options. With the differences between the various vendors primarily being in content and the look of the interfaces, application of the same basic workflow model to several additional vendors is relatively simple and requires far less time than setting up the first vendor.
6. Comparison: uses of vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering at UNC and University of Chicago Table 1 describes the different steps in the processes used by the two libraries. It gives a good overview of how processes may be developed and enables the co-authors to see where Chicago is taking greater advantage of technology and thus to the final conclusions regarding optimal conditions for using vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering.
Table 1 Comparison of processes at UNC and University of Chicago Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Chicago
Materials Budget for Monographs (firm and approval) Start Date of First Use Library Materials Vendors Used
Ca. $2 million from state funding
Ca. $2.9 million
November, 2000 YBP and Lindsay and Howes
Number of orders processed through Vendor-Assisted E-Selection and Online Ordering Automated Acquisitions Serials Control System Online Public Access Catalog Selection
Ca, 10,000 in FY 2001-2002
1996 ATC (1998), Casalini (1998), Harrassowitz (2000), YBP and Lindsay and Howes (1996) Ca. 28,100 in FY 2001-2002
Tagging
Batch Exporting of Selection/Order Records Batch Importing of Selection/Order Records Order release
Order transmission Electronic Invoice Load Receipt of Material
Payment of Electronic Invoices Cataloging of Books
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (not integrated with OPAC) DRA Most selectors still use paper notification slips Most selectors pass along slips for other staff to tag Done by a high-level staff member Done by a high-level staff member Done title by title with some data being edited; must be done to ensure adequate funding and encumbrance before official order sent to vendor Sent electronically to YBP and Lindsay and Howes as batch process Done by a high-level staff member Treated like other material except expedited because there is no pack to pull so can be ready for receipt more quickly Done by Library Accounting in batches No special treatment; sent to Copy Cataloging
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (not integrated with OPAC) Horizon Most selectors use online notification slips, although some continue to use paper slips. Most selectors tag directly via the vendor’s web interface, some pass along paper slips for ordering by Acquisitions staff (which skip the “Tagging” process) Not done. This follows order transmission/release. Done title by title on vendor website with changes to accounts, etc. as necessary. Done by student and clerical staff. Order transmission ⫽ order release
403
Done by a clerical staff member. YBP expedited—to labeling from Acquisitions within 48 hours of receipt by primarily student staff; ATC, Casalini, Harrassowitz all processed as normal material with the exception of filters used to identify anomalies. Done by Acquisitions Payments in batches or singly. Bibliographic records accepted without enhancement and all call numbers accepted unless they are in areas still cuttered locally (YBP). No special treatment for other vendors.
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
Process
404
Process
Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Chicago
Shelf-ready Processing
Not used
Duplication Queries Relationship with Library Materials Vendor Programming Support
Handled by high-level staff member Ongoing communication Ongoing, very little. Technical advice from Systems during start-up Working database record from YBP
Casalini affixes barcode and inserts theft detection strip, otherwise not used Handled by a clerical staff member Ongoing communication. Ongoing, very little. Technical advice from Systems during start-up. Working database record (order confirmations). Full record (receipt records) from YBP. Done automatically as part of loading of the record set and with reliance on vendor de-duplication. Some manual searches done such as series statements.
Level of bibliographic record provided Searching
Pre-searching is done for expensive orders; reliance on vendor for duplication identification; manual search to resolve dup queries from vendor
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
Table 1 Comparison of processes at UNC and University of Chicago
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
405
7. Optimal conditions for using vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering Clearly, there must be a high-level service ethic driving the processes so that new ways will be tried in the interest of improving service to patrons. There must also be a critical mass of material from vendors to warrant a separate work stream for the material being acquired. In addition, staff within the organization must be receptive and open to making changes and taking risks in order for new approaches, such as the ones outlined in this article, to be successful. Also, as the process involves close collaboration among selectors, Acquisitions, and the vendors, there must be a high level of trust and communication to ensure that the needs of all parties are being heard and addressed. Each party must have a level of trust in the reliability of the technology being used, in the data provided, in the vendors’ capabilities, and in the willingness of both selectors and acquisitions staff to do their parts in the process as agreed upon. Another fundamental principle that will help ensure success is how the automation is approached. If there is an approach by goals rather than by an attempt to replicate all steps in the existing manual system, the Library will be able to identify steps to eliminate without serious loss and will be able to take fuller advantage of the capabilities offered by the vendors. As evidenced by the situations at the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, and Georgia State, there must be a willingness to transform the entire technical services process to maximize the benefits. Lugg advises librarians to identify the mainstream of materials, the ones that have elements in common in order to batch them, and then eliminate the individual handling and decision-making typical of many technical processing operations where every item has been treated as unique under the traditional expert approach. Lugg notes, “If the goal is to design and staff for a scalable, production-oriented workflow, the organization must be willing to rely on a process rather than a person to ensure results” [11]. At the University of Chicago, emphasizing the use of automated processes to identify anomalous issues (e.g., duplication, special handling, local classification needs, etc.) is a basic principle. Often these processes are done by a person looking at all records for anomalies. Instead, one can use technology to direct a person to the anomalous titles while the majority of titles flow through with little manual intervention. The basic principle is to let a machine do what a machine does best (e.g., filtering through large quantities of data) while freeing staff to deal with issues that require more flexibility. It is important to note that, while technology offers the opportunity for selectors to retrieve materials earlier than paper slips, it also allows for different paths of retrieval. These, along with timeliness, are two very potent reasons for use of electronic selection. Vendors continue to add additional searching capabilities to their systems and access to information that was previously only accessible via a letter (in the not so distant past), phone call or e-mail to the customer service representative. Also, because the use of this method of acquisitions affects the information and paperwork (if any) provided to Cataloging, there must be a clear understanding regarding their needs. There also must be a high comfort level with automation among large numbers of technical services and collection development staff. Also, as the use of the vendor-assisted approach is expanded to multiple vendors, it is essential that those vendors have reliable systems that are intuitive and easy-to-use to enable staff to easily master the various setups and still be
406
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
highly productive. If all of these conditions are present, the chances for success with vendor-assisted e-selection and online ordering are very promising.
Bibliography Brown, L. (April 1999). The acquisitions workstation– collection development style. Against the Grain, 11 (2), 1. Breaux, A. M., & Flowers, J. A GobiWorks profile: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/ GobiProfile_files/chapelhillprofile.htm. Edwards, S., & DiRenzo, S. (November 22, 1999). To GOBI or not to GOBI: The University of Akron Libraries Experience Implementing GobiSelect. Online. ALAO 1999 Annual Conference Columbus, OH. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http:// www3.uakron.edu/library/ulsys/presentations/gobi-alao99/index.html. Fennessy, E., & Miraglia, K. (December 1997-January 1998). On the street. Against the Grain, 9 (6), 80. Fischer, R., & Lugg, R. (September 2001). I, user—the selector in the garden. Against the Grain, 13 (4), 38. Flowers, J. (2001). And they were there: reports of meetings: YBP’s GOBI user’s group meeting. Against the Grain, 13 (2), 68 –70. Flowers, J. (1999). Saving time and trees without getting lost in the woods: Electronic selection at the University of Chicago. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 23 (2), 212–213. Heller, A., & Lorenzen, E. (1999). Online ordering: making its mark. Library Journal, 124 (14), 153–158. Hounshell, J. (March 1999). Electronic ordering of monographs, part I: Blackwell’s Collection Manager. Technical Services Law Librarian, 24 (3). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/24-03/acq.htm. Kelly, G. (1995). Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): the exchange of ordering, claiming, and invoice information from a library perspective. Collection Management, 19 (3/4), 77–94. Lau, F. (1998?). Workflow support systems: the new mission of academic booksellers. Online. International Conference on New Missions of Academic Libraries in the 21st Century, Beijing, China, October 25–28, 1998. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/98conf/paper/a/RedmanLau.htm. Luther, J. (November 1997). Innovations affecting us: second generation online systems from book vendors. Against the Grain, 9 (5), 88. Marshall, D. L. (1993). The Internet connection for electronic ordering. Computers in Libraries, 13 (3), 26 –28. McNair, M., & Miller, D. (June 1999). Online selection tools. Against the Grain, 11 (3), 58. Nardini, R. (2001). Issues in vendor/library relations— hamburgers, minivans, and databases: a case study. Against the Grain, 13 (5), 89, 91. Schwarz, M. (June 1999). Electronic ordering of monographs part II: Yankee Book
J.L. Flowers, S. Perry / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 395– 407
407
Peddler’s GOBI. Online. Technical Services Law Librarian, 24 (4). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/24-04/acq.htm. Wicks, D. A., Bartolo, L., & Swords, D. (2001). Four birds with one stone: collaboration in collection development. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 25 (4), 473– 483. Withers, R. (December 2000-January 2001). Biz of acq—increasing your efficiency with Internet resources. Against the Grain, 9 (6), 1.
References [1] Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. R. Richards. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 85. [2] Clendenning (January 2001). Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 86. [3] Mulliner, K. (November 1998). E-commerce—a collection development perspective – Part 1 – Identification and selection. Against the Grain, 10 (5), 15, 18. [4] Kay, M. (April 2000). Web-based ordering for libraries. Against the Grain, 12 (2), 38. [5] Clendenning (December 2000-January 2001). Crossing the great divide between acquisitions and collections: selectors order online. Against the Grain, 12 (6), 86. [6] Breaux A. M., Clendenning. A GobiWorks profile: University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/GobiProfile_files/uvirginiaprofile.htm. 2001. [7] Breaux A. M., Stephens J., & Anderson D. A GobiWorks profile: Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ybp.com/GobiProfile_files/georgiaprofile.htm. 2001. [8] Wilson M. E. E-mail correspondence from Mary Ellen Wilson to Janet L. Flowers 7/3/02. [9] Coats J. E-mail correspondence from Jackie Coats to Janet L. Flowers 7/1/02. [10] Brumley R. E-mail from Richard Brumley to Janet L. Flowers July 2, 2002. [11] Fischer, R., & Lugg, R. (April 2002). I, user – down by the ol’ mainstream: backlogs and bottlenecks. Against the Grain, 14 (2), 74.