- Email: [email protected]
Inventory and selection techniques for large unorganized collections
LibraryAcquisitions:Practiceand Theory, Vol. 2, pp. 23-28 (1978). Pergamon
Press. Printed
0364-6408/78/0101-0023$o2.00/0 Copyright
in the U.S.A.
INVENTORY
AND SELECTION
FOR LARGE UNORGANIZED
0 1978 Pergamon
Press
TECHNIQUES COLLECTIONS
BRIAN ALLEY Assistant
Director
of Technical
JENNIFER
S. CARGlLL
Acquisitions Miami University Oxford,
Services
Librarian Libraries
Ohio 45056
ABSTRACT Librarians at Miami University Libraries were faced with the purchase of 100,000 volumes of assorted books and devised a means of organizing the collection for selection purposes. Using microfilming techniques, the librarians created an inventory card file of alphabetically arranged title pages. This file was designed primarily to provide access to the collection and secondarily to be used as a basic selection tool.
In fiscal year 1971/72, Miami University purchased a 100,000 volume book collection from a New York dealer specializing in out-of-print materials. The collection arrived in two trailer truck loads and was stored in boxes in the stack area of the library, overflowing into the basement of an adjacent building. There the books remained until the main library collection and personnel moved to a newly constructed building in August 1972. The move to new quarters freed stack space in the old library to house the newly purchased collection. Since the collection was unorganized, the books were placed on the stack shelves in random order. With the boxes of books unpacked and shelved, the staff could then begin planning the processing phase.
ORGANIZING
THE COLLECTION
It was soon apparent that some means of access to specific titles in such a large collection must be devised so that handling of the books could be reduced to an absolute minimum. Visions of librarians struggling to select titles from an unorganized collection housed in a storage facility pointed out the need for an inventory card We providing basic bibliographic information on each card as well as a unique retrieval number for the book on the shelf. If an inventory card file proved feasible, it might also be considered for initial selection purposes. A nearby academic library had made a similar bulk book purchase a few years earlier so we 23
24
BRIAN ALLEY and JENNIFER S. CARGILL
Figure 1. Duplicate numbers were applied to title page and book spine before filming. (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service). consulted their technical services staff for advice. They had rented a 16 millimeter microfilm camera and filmed title pages, pre-assigning inventory numbers to title pages in advance of filming. The film was later reproduced on 3” x 5” catalog card stock for filing. We decided that this procedure would be the most expedient way to organize our new collection. Next, we consulted vendors for suggestions and eventually arrived at a system designed around a series 161G 16-millimeter Canon Processor Camera modified by the vendor, Central Microfilm Service Corporation of St. Louis, to handle a broad range of title page formats without requiring changes in focus or other adjustments. This particular camera allows for on-site film developing, thus permitting the camera operator or a member of the library filming staff to develop and inspect each roll of film immediately after exposure, thereby insuring consistent quality and reducing the need for expensive retakes. The vendor simplified the method of assigning inventory numbers by providing rolls of duplicate numbers printed on adhesive labels. Each book selected for filming would have a unique inventory number applied to the upper right corner of the title page, with the duplicate number affixed to the spine in call number position.
25
Inventory and Selection Techniques
Figure 2. Film inspection was completed minutes after exposure to insure consistent (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service).
quality.
Before the project began, various members of the library staff reviewed the collection to discard titles of marginal value; e.g., condensed books, popular paperbacks, and other ephemeral items. Several thousand books were soon eliminated. When this initial discarding was completed, we were ready to begin a formal inventory file.
FILMING PROCESS The filming process was carried out in fiscal 1973/74. A group leader was selected from the technical services staff, a temporary clerk was hired to operate the camera, and student assistants were assigned to move and shelve books, and to assist in the processing. The film crew set up shop in the recently vacated library stacks, now a permanent storage area, and started processing in February 1974. Due to dusty working conditions, project staff were issued coveralls supplied by a local linen service, plus disposable lab coats and gloves. A camera technician, supplied by the vendor, delivered the camera and supplies, spent two days training the camera operator and staff,
26
BRIAN ALLEY and JENNIFER S. CARCILL
Figure 3. Title page format is compared with camera template to determine (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service).
size requirements.
assisted in working out the logistics of the filming routine, and returned to St. Louis where he was available by phone throughout the filming process to give advice and answer specific technical questions. The filming process began on February 20, 1974 and was completed on May 21 of that year. The 85,888 title pages were filmed at a cost of 4.8~ per frame. This cost included a 3 x 5 inch print of each frame on Library of Congress card stock. The project was completed in record time, largely due to the well trained and highly motivated filming crew which was able to process up to 1500 volumes a day, well beyond our most optimistic predictions. As a result of these efforts, the project was concluded 30 days earlier than the target date of June 20. The cards were ready for filing almost as soon as the filming ended, since they were being printed at the St. Louis plant as fast as we were able to process the film and deliver it to them. The card printing was accomplished by the use of a commercial xerographic process and the final product arrived with holes punched ready for filing. The only books not handled by our filming system were those few oversized volumes which would not fit the 20 x 13r%inch camera format.
Inventory
and Selection
Techniques
27
Figure 4. The vendor produced inventory cards which were filed alphabetically by title. Note inventory number in upper left comer. (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service). These volumes were set aside and cards were typed to represent them in the inventory. The finished cards were filed alphabetically by title in a surplus catalog cabinet. The filing phase was completed by student assistants during the summer months. No revising of the filing was attempted. During the filing process, duplicate titles were brought together for easy identification.
EVALUATION
AND SELECTION
After several false starts, an attempt was made in 1974 to review the xeroxed cards using an existing approval plan profile to provide selection guidelines. This proved to be a cumbersome and unrealistic method since most of the books were old, many did not fit the profiles, and most titles were difficult to analyze without a great deal of research. Many books which fit the general profile categories were not materials the reference librarians really wanted to add, consequently, many unwanted books were being put through the expensive processing procedures and were occupying
28
BRIAN
ALLEY
and JENNIFER
S. CARGILL
valuable shelf space. By late 1975, 9,981 title cards had been examined by the acquisitions librarian while only 1,790 books were eventually retained. This represented an 18% retention rate. Under this perfunctory selection process, we soon found that we were adding many marginally acceptable titles. To correct this deficiency would have required considerably more staff involvement than we were prepared to commit so, in early 1976, we decided to revise the entire selection procedure. The new guidelines required reference librarians to review the titles, 100 cards at a time, routed to them once a week. The card groups were sent to the divisional reference departments beginning on Tuesday of each week. Reference librarians coded the cards for titles selected as follows: K = retain under all conditions; E = retain unless we have the same edition; D = retain unless we have the same or a different edition; X = consult the curator; S = retrieve volume for further review. After this examination, the card groups were returned to the acquisitions librarian and the marked cards were then separated and searched to see if they represented titles already in the collection. Further weeding was accomplished in accordance with the code on the card. Only those books selected were retrieved from storage and then only those in obviously good condition. Unmarked cards and marked cards not meeting the guidelines, were refiled in the catalog cabinet. No attempt was made to reexamine the 9,981 cards reviewed by the acquisitions librarian under the old procedure. The new review procedure took over where the old procedure ended. Eventually, additional cards were added to the selection routine. It was agreed by all participants that this entire process would constitute an initial review of the collection. This selection procedure was initiated March 15, 1976, more than four years after the purchase of the collection and almost two years after the original filming and card production. Between March 15, 1976 and March 1.5, 1978, an additional 18,363 titles were reviewed of which 3,708 titles (20%) were selected for addition to the collection. Some selected titles were not added because they turned out to be duplicates, were in poor condition, or were part of incomplete sets. At this writing, overall retention rate is close to 16%.
PROCESSING Acquisitions personnel searched the selections and retrieved those titles identified for processing. The books were guttered and sent on to cataloging with the inventory card in the book. Once the books were catalogued, the accompanying inventory cards were filed in a separate “cataloged” section of the inventory file.
WHAT LIES AHEAD Two-thirds of the collection is still awaiting the initial review over the next several years. When that is accomplished and a final evaluation of the titles is completed, the remaining volumes will be sold at auction.
Press. Printed
0364-6408/78/0101-0023$o2.00/0 Copyright
in the U.S.A.
INVENTORY
AND SELECTION
FOR LARGE UNORGANIZED
0 1978 Pergamon
Press
TECHNIQUES COLLECTIONS
BRIAN ALLEY Assistant
Director
of Technical
JENNIFER
S. CARGlLL
Acquisitions Miami University Oxford,
Services
Librarian Libraries
Ohio 45056
ABSTRACT Librarians at Miami University Libraries were faced with the purchase of 100,000 volumes of assorted books and devised a means of organizing the collection for selection purposes. Using microfilming techniques, the librarians created an inventory card file of alphabetically arranged title pages. This file was designed primarily to provide access to the collection and secondarily to be used as a basic selection tool.
In fiscal year 1971/72, Miami University purchased a 100,000 volume book collection from a New York dealer specializing in out-of-print materials. The collection arrived in two trailer truck loads and was stored in boxes in the stack area of the library, overflowing into the basement of an adjacent building. There the books remained until the main library collection and personnel moved to a newly constructed building in August 1972. The move to new quarters freed stack space in the old library to house the newly purchased collection. Since the collection was unorganized, the books were placed on the stack shelves in random order. With the boxes of books unpacked and shelved, the staff could then begin planning the processing phase.
ORGANIZING
THE COLLECTION
It was soon apparent that some means of access to specific titles in such a large collection must be devised so that handling of the books could be reduced to an absolute minimum. Visions of librarians struggling to select titles from an unorganized collection housed in a storage facility pointed out the need for an inventory card We providing basic bibliographic information on each card as well as a unique retrieval number for the book on the shelf. If an inventory card file proved feasible, it might also be considered for initial selection purposes. A nearby academic library had made a similar bulk book purchase a few years earlier so we 23
24
BRIAN ALLEY and JENNIFER S. CARGILL
Figure 1. Duplicate numbers were applied to title page and book spine before filming. (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service). consulted their technical services staff for advice. They had rented a 16 millimeter microfilm camera and filmed title pages, pre-assigning inventory numbers to title pages in advance of filming. The film was later reproduced on 3” x 5” catalog card stock for filing. We decided that this procedure would be the most expedient way to organize our new collection. Next, we consulted vendors for suggestions and eventually arrived at a system designed around a series 161G 16-millimeter Canon Processor Camera modified by the vendor, Central Microfilm Service Corporation of St. Louis, to handle a broad range of title page formats without requiring changes in focus or other adjustments. This particular camera allows for on-site film developing, thus permitting the camera operator or a member of the library filming staff to develop and inspect each roll of film immediately after exposure, thereby insuring consistent quality and reducing the need for expensive retakes. The vendor simplified the method of assigning inventory numbers by providing rolls of duplicate numbers printed on adhesive labels. Each book selected for filming would have a unique inventory number applied to the upper right corner of the title page, with the duplicate number affixed to the spine in call number position.
25
Inventory and Selection Techniques
Figure 2. Film inspection was completed minutes after exposure to insure consistent (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service).
quality.
Before the project began, various members of the library staff reviewed the collection to discard titles of marginal value; e.g., condensed books, popular paperbacks, and other ephemeral items. Several thousand books were soon eliminated. When this initial discarding was completed, we were ready to begin a formal inventory file.
FILMING PROCESS The filming process was carried out in fiscal 1973/74. A group leader was selected from the technical services staff, a temporary clerk was hired to operate the camera, and student assistants were assigned to move and shelve books, and to assist in the processing. The film crew set up shop in the recently vacated library stacks, now a permanent storage area, and started processing in February 1974. Due to dusty working conditions, project staff were issued coveralls supplied by a local linen service, plus disposable lab coats and gloves. A camera technician, supplied by the vendor, delivered the camera and supplies, spent two days training the camera operator and staff,
26
BRIAN ALLEY and JENNIFER S. CARCILL
Figure 3. Title page format is compared with camera template to determine (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service).
size requirements.
assisted in working out the logistics of the filming routine, and returned to St. Louis where he was available by phone throughout the filming process to give advice and answer specific technical questions. The filming process began on February 20, 1974 and was completed on May 21 of that year. The 85,888 title pages were filmed at a cost of 4.8~ per frame. This cost included a 3 x 5 inch print of each frame on Library of Congress card stock. The project was completed in record time, largely due to the well trained and highly motivated filming crew which was able to process up to 1500 volumes a day, well beyond our most optimistic predictions. As a result of these efforts, the project was concluded 30 days earlier than the target date of June 20. The cards were ready for filing almost as soon as the filming ended, since they were being printed at the St. Louis plant as fast as we were able to process the film and deliver it to them. The card printing was accomplished by the use of a commercial xerographic process and the final product arrived with holes punched ready for filing. The only books not handled by our filming system were those few oversized volumes which would not fit the 20 x 13r%inch camera format.
Inventory
and Selection
Techniques
27
Figure 4. The vendor produced inventory cards which were filed alphabetically by title. Note inventory number in upper left comer. (Photo by Miami University Audio-Visual Service). These volumes were set aside and cards were typed to represent them in the inventory. The finished cards were filed alphabetically by title in a surplus catalog cabinet. The filing phase was completed by student assistants during the summer months. No revising of the filing was attempted. During the filing process, duplicate titles were brought together for easy identification.
EVALUATION
AND SELECTION
After several false starts, an attempt was made in 1974 to review the xeroxed cards using an existing approval plan profile to provide selection guidelines. This proved to be a cumbersome and unrealistic method since most of the books were old, many did not fit the profiles, and most titles were difficult to analyze without a great deal of research. Many books which fit the general profile categories were not materials the reference librarians really wanted to add, consequently, many unwanted books were being put through the expensive processing procedures and were occupying
28
BRIAN
ALLEY
and JENNIFER
S. CARGILL
valuable shelf space. By late 1975, 9,981 title cards had been examined by the acquisitions librarian while only 1,790 books were eventually retained. This represented an 18% retention rate. Under this perfunctory selection process, we soon found that we were adding many marginally acceptable titles. To correct this deficiency would have required considerably more staff involvement than we were prepared to commit so, in early 1976, we decided to revise the entire selection procedure. The new guidelines required reference librarians to review the titles, 100 cards at a time, routed to them once a week. The card groups were sent to the divisional reference departments beginning on Tuesday of each week. Reference librarians coded the cards for titles selected as follows: K = retain under all conditions; E = retain unless we have the same edition; D = retain unless we have the same or a different edition; X = consult the curator; S = retrieve volume for further review. After this examination, the card groups were returned to the acquisitions librarian and the marked cards were then separated and searched to see if they represented titles already in the collection. Further weeding was accomplished in accordance with the code on the card. Only those books selected were retrieved from storage and then only those in obviously good condition. Unmarked cards and marked cards not meeting the guidelines, were refiled in the catalog cabinet. No attempt was made to reexamine the 9,981 cards reviewed by the acquisitions librarian under the old procedure. The new review procedure took over where the old procedure ended. Eventually, additional cards were added to the selection routine. It was agreed by all participants that this entire process would constitute an initial review of the collection. This selection procedure was initiated March 15, 1976, more than four years after the purchase of the collection and almost two years after the original filming and card production. Between March 15, 1976 and March 1.5, 1978, an additional 18,363 titles were reviewed of which 3,708 titles (20%) were selected for addition to the collection. Some selected titles were not added because they turned out to be duplicates, were in poor condition, or were part of incomplete sets. At this writing, overall retention rate is close to 16%.
PROCESSING Acquisitions personnel searched the selections and retrieved those titles identified for processing. The books were guttered and sent on to cataloging with the inventory card in the book. Once the books were catalogued, the accompanying inventory cards were filed in a separate “cataloged” section of the inventory file.
WHAT LIES AHEAD Two-thirds of the collection is still awaiting the initial review over the next several years. When that is accomplished and a final evaluation of the titles is completed, the remaining volumes will be sold at auction.