- Email: [email protected]
The acquisitions connection: Interfacing library and materials Vendors' systems: Report of the program sponsored by the LAMA SASS Acquisitions Systems Committee and the ALCTS RS Acquisitions Committee
Library Acquisitions:
Practice & Theory, Vol. 16, pp. 299-304,
1992
Printed in the USA. AU rights reserved.
ALA ANNUAL
0364-640&l/92 $5.00 + .OO
Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
CONFERENCE
1991
The Acquisitions Connection: Interfacing Library and Materials Vendors’ Systems: Report of the Program Sponsored by the LAMA SASS Acquisitions Systems Committee and the ALCTS RS Acquisitions Committee Four speakers participated in the program and panel discussion sponsored by the LAMA SASS Acquisitions Systems Committee and the ALCTS RS Acquisitions Committee: Mary Casserly, Collection Development Division, Head, University of Maine; Leslie Straus, Innovative Interfaces; Amy Miller, Yankee Book Peddler; Fritz Schwartz, Faxon. Collectively they described for attendees the role played by the library in electronic interfacing, the role played by the vendor, the role played by the developer of the interface, and the possibilities for future developments. Based on her experiences at the University of Maine, Casserly listed five conclusions resulting from development of a vendor interface. Automation will be both positive and negative for staff and the department. It is difficult to make a case that a vendor interface will reduce staff or new hires. Instead it will provide savings in paperwork and errors and employ staff at higher grade work. A vendor interface makes a quantitative and qualitative difference, for example, in better management reports. There is a standardization of procedures, and the demands individual libraries make on vendors for electronic interfaces could negatively impact upon us all. Leslie Straus traced the progression of Innovative Interface’s involvement with electronic interfaces from approval plan vendors, to serial vendors, and later to electronic ordering. Straus then laid out the issues a developer of electronic interfaces must ask. First, is there a burning passion on the part of the library and the vendor to accomplish the interface? Without the strong commitment of both these parties, the development of the system may flounder. Second, is it compatible with Innovative Interfaces’ development plans? Straus pointed out that at Innovative Interfaces they ask whether the resources are available to develop the interface and is it a product they can sell to other libraries. Third, what needs to be developed for this interface? At this step an interface developer seeks answers to questions such as what are the purposes and breath of the interface? what range of materials? what kind of data? and what type of link? Fourth, how will the developed product be implemented by the vendor and the library? And last, what does possession of an electronic interface mean for a library? For example, once an interface is installed, your orders disappear instantly. Your procedures have to accommodate this. There are no last-minute changes or mail delays. Amy Miller discussed current interface products and services available from Yankee, what standards are available, how vendors prioritize requests for development of an interface, how vendors utilize MARC records, how electronic ordering is currently performed, and the future development of standards pertaining to electronic ordering. Continuing the discussion of standards, Fritz Schwarz’s presentation provided a review of various MARC-based standards utilized by libraries and the ANSI Xl2 standards, which are the standards of choice within the American business community. The question-and-answer period following the presentations contained vendor-specific ques299
300
ALA Annual Conference
1991
tions on electronic interfaces (for Yankee and Faxon) as well as questions pertaining to ANSI X12. Libraries were encouraged to ask for what they really want with an electronic interface, to evaluate their needs carefully, and to review carefully the timetable for development of an interface. Clearly, the near future will change the ordering process for many of us. Michael D. Cramer Head of Acquisitions Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, VA 24061-9001
The Impact of Automated Acquisitions on Collection Development: Report of the Program Sponsored by RASD Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) This program, held Sunday, June 30, 1991,2 p.m.-4 p.m., in the World Congress Center, Atlanta, was sponsored by the Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) of the Reference & Adult Services Division (RASD) and planned by the CODES Conference Program Committee, under the chairmanship of Salvatore Meringolo, Penn State University. CODES Chair Dana Rooks, Assistant Director for Administrative Services, University of Houston Libraries, served as moderator. Gene Wiemers, Assistant University Librarian for Collection Management, Northwestern University, first assessed the changes that automated acquisitions systems have brought to collection development, and then outlined what still remains to be accomplished. Automated acquisitions systems have made it possible to accomplish more selection with the same resources. Preorder verification, for example, transformed by keyword and Boolean searching, has been delegated downward, permitting selectors to focus on management. Automation has contributed to distributing the collection development function more widely (raising the question of how far it can be distributed and still be effectively managed). Automation has provided selectors with more management information. It permits collection development and evaluation to be done more systematically. Order status information is more readily available to selectors and the public. On the other hand, automation has not eliminated routine work for selectors. It has not eliminated the paper- or microcomputer-based files selectors keep. Where collection management information is not fully developed it must compete with other system enhancements. Any migration from one system to another requires selectors’ involvement, as useful features cannot be taken for granted. What automated acquisitions systems have done is enable a generation of collection developers to become collection managers, but the needs of collection management will not be fully met until systems are actually designed for collection management functions. Rebecca Lenzini, President, CARL Systems, Inc., reviewed the current state of automated acquisition systems and of prospects for extending automation to collection development. As an intellectual process, collection development is hard to replicate by machine. Early automation efforts have focused on routine, quantifiable processes; acquisitions automation began with fiscal control. Systems that permitted interactive searching and report preparation started to appear in the 1980s. While at first these were isolated from other library systems, now integrated systems track books through technical processes and feed the acquisitions record into the OPAC and the circulation system. Integration offers collection managers more information about collection use and greater analysis capabilities. Certain decision criteria can now be encoded. The emerging online en-
Practice & Theory, Vol. 16, pp. 299-304,
1992
Printed in the USA. AU rights reserved.
ALA ANNUAL
0364-640&l/92 $5.00 + .OO
Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
CONFERENCE
1991
The Acquisitions Connection: Interfacing Library and Materials Vendors’ Systems: Report of the Program Sponsored by the LAMA SASS Acquisitions Systems Committee and the ALCTS RS Acquisitions Committee Four speakers participated in the program and panel discussion sponsored by the LAMA SASS Acquisitions Systems Committee and the ALCTS RS Acquisitions Committee: Mary Casserly, Collection Development Division, Head, University of Maine; Leslie Straus, Innovative Interfaces; Amy Miller, Yankee Book Peddler; Fritz Schwartz, Faxon. Collectively they described for attendees the role played by the library in electronic interfacing, the role played by the vendor, the role played by the developer of the interface, and the possibilities for future developments. Based on her experiences at the University of Maine, Casserly listed five conclusions resulting from development of a vendor interface. Automation will be both positive and negative for staff and the department. It is difficult to make a case that a vendor interface will reduce staff or new hires. Instead it will provide savings in paperwork and errors and employ staff at higher grade work. A vendor interface makes a quantitative and qualitative difference, for example, in better management reports. There is a standardization of procedures, and the demands individual libraries make on vendors for electronic interfaces could negatively impact upon us all. Leslie Straus traced the progression of Innovative Interface’s involvement with electronic interfaces from approval plan vendors, to serial vendors, and later to electronic ordering. Straus then laid out the issues a developer of electronic interfaces must ask. First, is there a burning passion on the part of the library and the vendor to accomplish the interface? Without the strong commitment of both these parties, the development of the system may flounder. Second, is it compatible with Innovative Interfaces’ development plans? Straus pointed out that at Innovative Interfaces they ask whether the resources are available to develop the interface and is it a product they can sell to other libraries. Third, what needs to be developed for this interface? At this step an interface developer seeks answers to questions such as what are the purposes and breath of the interface? what range of materials? what kind of data? and what type of link? Fourth, how will the developed product be implemented by the vendor and the library? And last, what does possession of an electronic interface mean for a library? For example, once an interface is installed, your orders disappear instantly. Your procedures have to accommodate this. There are no last-minute changes or mail delays. Amy Miller discussed current interface products and services available from Yankee, what standards are available, how vendors prioritize requests for development of an interface, how vendors utilize MARC records, how electronic ordering is currently performed, and the future development of standards pertaining to electronic ordering. Continuing the discussion of standards, Fritz Schwarz’s presentation provided a review of various MARC-based standards utilized by libraries and the ANSI Xl2 standards, which are the standards of choice within the American business community. The question-and-answer period following the presentations contained vendor-specific ques299
300
ALA Annual Conference
1991
tions on electronic interfaces (for Yankee and Faxon) as well as questions pertaining to ANSI X12. Libraries were encouraged to ask for what they really want with an electronic interface, to evaluate their needs carefully, and to review carefully the timetable for development of an interface. Clearly, the near future will change the ordering process for many of us. Michael D. Cramer Head of Acquisitions Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, VA 24061-9001
The Impact of Automated Acquisitions on Collection Development: Report of the Program Sponsored by RASD Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) This program, held Sunday, June 30, 1991,2 p.m.-4 p.m., in the World Congress Center, Atlanta, was sponsored by the Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) of the Reference & Adult Services Division (RASD) and planned by the CODES Conference Program Committee, under the chairmanship of Salvatore Meringolo, Penn State University. CODES Chair Dana Rooks, Assistant Director for Administrative Services, University of Houston Libraries, served as moderator. Gene Wiemers, Assistant University Librarian for Collection Management, Northwestern University, first assessed the changes that automated acquisitions systems have brought to collection development, and then outlined what still remains to be accomplished. Automated acquisitions systems have made it possible to accomplish more selection with the same resources. Preorder verification, for example, transformed by keyword and Boolean searching, has been delegated downward, permitting selectors to focus on management. Automation has contributed to distributing the collection development function more widely (raising the question of how far it can be distributed and still be effectively managed). Automation has provided selectors with more management information. It permits collection development and evaluation to be done more systematically. Order status information is more readily available to selectors and the public. On the other hand, automation has not eliminated routine work for selectors. It has not eliminated the paper- or microcomputer-based files selectors keep. Where collection management information is not fully developed it must compete with other system enhancements. Any migration from one system to another requires selectors’ involvement, as useful features cannot be taken for granted. What automated acquisitions systems have done is enable a generation of collection developers to become collection managers, but the needs of collection management will not be fully met until systems are actually designed for collection management functions. Rebecca Lenzini, President, CARL Systems, Inc., reviewed the current state of automated acquisition systems and of prospects for extending automation to collection development. As an intellectual process, collection development is hard to replicate by machine. Early automation efforts have focused on routine, quantifiable processes; acquisitions automation began with fiscal control. Systems that permitted interactive searching and report preparation started to appear in the 1980s. While at first these were isolated from other library systems, now integrated systems track books through technical processes and feed the acquisitions record into the OPAC and the circulation system. Integration offers collection managers more information about collection use and greater analysis capabilities. Certain decision criteria can now be encoded. The emerging online en-