









































170  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

Inventorying a Library 
Collection—One After 
Thirty Years, and One 
After Two Years
A Listen-and-Learn Session Presented by 
Richard A. Lammert, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana 
Stephen Sweeney, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado

ABSTR ACT Inventorying a library’s collection is something that most 
libraries do at some time. This listen-and-learn session was designed to 
show the experience of two different libraries in conducting an inven-
tory. The inventory in the first library was done for the first time in thirty 
years, because the physical collections of the library were finally in one 
place, permitting an inventory to be done fairly easily. The inventory in 
the second library was done for the fourth time in a biennial process. 
The process in these two libraries was presented so that attendees 
could determine what part of the methods presented might be applica-
ble to their own situation.

RICHARD LAMMERT, TECHNICAL SERVICES LIBRARIAN, 
WAYNE AND BARBARA KROEMER LIBRARY, CONCORDIA 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Although I say in the title to this presentation that the inventory 
that I will document was the first one in thirty years, no one knows 
for sure when a previous inventory had been conducted. Concordia 
Theological Seminary moved from a campus in Springfield, Illinois, 
to a campus in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1976. This move affected the 
library, since its collections were in a 30,000-square-foot building in 
Springfield, which had to move into a 15,000-square-foot building 
in Fort Wayne. A portion of the collection (about 25,000 to 30,000 
volumes) was placed in storage (located in various places around 
the campus during the time the items remained in storage). Only 



Listen and Learn  171

when an expansion and renovation of the library, started in 2009 
and completed in 2015, had expanded the facility to 60,000 square 
feet could all holdings of the library be accommodated in one place.

The library’s holdings underwent retrospective conversion in 
the 1980s. Smart barcodes were added to books in the early 2000s. 
The library’s machine-readable cataloging had migrated three 
times to different systems. But at no time was there a comparison 
between the item, its barcode, and the attached record. The integra-
tion of all parts of the collection under one roof allowed the library to 
address the pressing need of actually seeing how the physical items 
compared to the electronic representation.

There were some specific, known problems. There were “orphan” 
smart barcodes remaining in a binder, barcodes for which no match-
ing physical item had been found. There were items that were long 
overdue, some of which had migrated from an earlier circulation 
system. Some items in the catalog were identified with a temporary 
barcode that had been input during initial work with the item, but 
for which no actual barcode had been included.

The professional staff prepared a working document in the 
summer of 2017, listing these goals for the inventory work: (1) Verify 
that WorldShare Management Services (WMS, the current ILS) 
represents as accurately as possible the holdings of Kroemer Library; 
(2) Verify that the call number listed in the catalog matches the call 
number on the book; (3) Verify that the barcode listed in the catalog 
matches the barcode in the book; (4) Verify that the author and title in 
the catalog correspond to the book. The end purpose of the inventory 
process was to make sure that the catalog accurately reflected what 
was on the shelf, and to take action on all books not on the shelf.

The library’s collection development policy provided the basis 
for determining the disposition of books that were not on the shelf 
(or were on the shelf, but needed repair). Factors considered when 
looking at whether to replace or repair a book included the number 
of libraries from which the book was available, the availability of 
full text online, the number of circulations the library copy had, 
and whether the book fit the definition of a “core” collection of a 
Lutheran seminary.

Goals need to drive the method used to achieve them. Most 
integrated library systems—including OCLC’s WMS—have an 



172  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

inventorying capability, but these capabilities did not do everything 
we wanted. We used readily available (and free) tools to create the 
lists we needed for the inventory: MARC data from OCLC, MarcEdit to 
translate MARC data to a textual form, the perl scripting language to 
manipulate the textual data, a perl module (Library::CallNumber::LC) 
to sort call numbers, and Google sheets to store the shared, working 
copy of the inventory lists. We used these tools to create a spreadsheet 
that included all the elements we wanted to verify: barcode, call 
number, author, and title. (An attendee pointed out that OCLC reports 
could produce a listing of all these items, so we may have been 
incorrect in thinking that OCLC could not provide our lists.)

Three of the library’s professional librarians prototyped the 
process in late summer 2017. The prototyping showed us that the 
process was one that student employees could easily manage. The 
prototyping also allowed us to put together an initial list of problems 
that might be encountered during the process, together with the steps 
for resolution.

The inventorying project was sizeable: the circulating collection of 
139,752 volumes needed to be inventoried at the same time that the 
library was in use, so that volumes would go out and come in, some 
having been inventoried, while others not. An estimate of the length 
of the project was made by taking this total number of volumes, deter-
mining the average number of books handled in an hour, how many 
hours of student workers we could dedicate to the project, and which 
times of the year there would not be sufficient student workers avail-
able to dedicate any time to the project. Our estimate was that the proj-
ect could be completed in approximately five and a half quarters. Thus, 
starting in the fall quarter of 2017, we should be finished by the end of 
the spring quarter 2019 (an estimate that proved remarkably accurate).

The prototyping phase helped us determine a number of factors. 
One was the amount of time one person could reasonably spend doing 
the work (one half-hour). One was a realization that the person working 
did not have to compare the entire thirteen-digit barcode, but needed 
only to match the last four digits; the inventory sheet was modified 
to include only these four digits. Other than this, the inventory sheet 
was remarkably stable. The division of labor between student work-
ers and librarians was shifted slightly after several months of work. 
The librarians had been checking on books not on the shelf to deter-



Listen and Learn  173

mine if they were checked out. This step was given to one of the last 
student workers in the day to accomplish. This required another small 
change in the worksheet: the entire barcode was not on the sheet (it 
was included in the Google sheet used by the librarians), so that was 
added to expedite lookups by the student worker.

As already implied, student workers and professional librarians 
were involved in the project. The student workers did the physical 
inventory, marking books that were not on the shelf and pulling books 
that had some problem with them. The three professional librarians 
(on a rotating basis) went through the result of each previous day’s 
work, acting on cases that needed resolution, and recording the activ-
ity and decisions in the Google sheet.

Close attention was paid to keep the project on track. A check 
was done each month to see whether the project was progressing on 
schedule, and whether it would be finished by the estimated comple-
tion date. The full professional staff reviewed the progress every week 
during their normal staff meeting. About twice a month the three 
professional librarians and the director met to review specific items 
that an individual librarian could not resolve.

Necessary adjustments were made as the need arose. As noted 
above, only a few changes were needed. The goals of the project had 
been clarified; the methods to achieve those goals had been devel-
oped and tested. There was consistent and continual overview of the 
project, to determine that adequate progress was being made and that 
any problems could be quickly and efficiently solved.

The outcome? We completed the project in the projected time, 
even having time to inventory the reference section before the end 
of Spring Quarter, 2019, the projected ending date of the project. We 
updated our holdings in WorldCat to reflect as accurately as possible 
our actual holdings throughout the project. During the course of the 
project, we handled or researched 5.5% (7,683 items) of the circulating 
collection. It is worth noting that not all of these were “problem” chil-
dren. Because our student workers were checking author and title, the 
librarians often had to review a book that was entered under a uniform 
title which wasn’t on the book, or under a form of the author’s name 
that wasn’t on the book. These were necessary distractions, since we 
wanted to verify that the catalog listing was accurate, and they were 
quickly marked “OK” on our Google sheet and returned to the shelf.



174  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

Statistics are interesting, but tell only a part of the story—but it is 
a part of the story. We withdrew 1,081 items during the process. Most 
of these items were ones that had not been on the shelf for decades, so 
this, for the most part, represented only a correction in our list of hold-
ings. Almost 600 items were relabeled, and almost 700 had the local 
holding record updated. Some of the mistakes would generally not 
have made the item invisible: lack of a date in the call number, or the 
last digit of the cutter incorrect. However, some mistakes completely 
lost the item in the stacks: an incorrect classification number or even 
the wrong shelving location. So those 1300 items represent books 
that can now be found, when they might have been invisible earlier.

What would we have done differently? Actually, very little. We had 
defined our goal, or methods, and knew how long the project should 
take. That analysis required us to determine how we would handle 
books that weren’t on the shelf because they were checked out, or 
otherwise unavailable. All of these steps had been done at the outset 
of the project. What was left were the problems of which we were 
unaware, problems that cropped up while we worked—but these were 
taken care of quickly because of the close oversight of the project.

What is next? There are several sections of the library’s collections 
that we have yet to inventory. There is the determination of the dispo-
sition of books that were discovered not to be on the shelf during the 
inventory (these are what we call the “new missing” ones, in contrast 
to the ones we already knew were missing). Then there is the plan-
ning for a new periodic inventory—which will probably happen before 
another thirty years.

STEPHEN SWEENEY, DIRECTOR, CARDINAL STAFFORD 
LIBRARY, ST. JOHN VIANNEY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

In a 2017 issue of Collaborative Librarianship, Jennifer Harveland states 
one of the outcomes of inventory is that “[l]ibrary staff gained knowl-
edge of the local collection during the process, and having organized 
it, were able to provide stronger customer service” (https://digitalc-
ommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/). First, an introduction 
of Saint John Vianney Seminary followed by the inventory process 
that has happened over the past decade.

Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary (SJV) is the Catholic 

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/


Listen and Learn  175

seminary in Denver with 3.5 FTE in the library. We serve a population 
of about 120 FTE seminarians and approximately thirty faculty and 
staff. Our seminarian/student population is 100% residential, and 
all students have the occasion to use the library. Saint John Vianney 
offers one nondegree program in the form of a propadeutic year (it’s 
named the Spirituality Year). The seminary offers two philosophi-
cal degrees: a BA in Philosophy in affiliation with Regis University in 
Denver, and a BPhil degree in affiliation with the Angelicum in Rome. 
SJV offers to some students the opportunity to complete their philo-
sophical studies by a nondegree “standard program” of coursework 
in philosophy. Two degree programs are offered in theology: the MDiv 
program is approved and accredited by ATS, and the STB (Baccalau-
reate Degree in Sacred Theology) is offered via affiliation with the 
Angelicum in Rome.

The library currently owns approximately 165,000 items and 
subscribes to OCLC WorldShare Management Services (WMS). The 
conversation first began in 2010 with the appointment of a new 
Library Director. In conversations with current staff and volunteers, 
the realization was arrived at that inventory (if it had occurred) had 
not happened since prior to 1978. It was at that point that one of the 
library’s volunteers first began her employment at SJV. Frequent 
inventories use staff and financial resources and require commu-
nity support and cooperation. Frequent inventories remind the users 
that we are responsible for this collection and that use of the collec-
tion has a real impact (negative and positive). Inventory also requires 
buy-in from the Academic Dean and the Rector-President, as we close 
access to the stacks for the duration of inventory of that part of the 
collection. We share some of the inventory statistics with our semi-
nary community. The value of inventory lasts long after the process 
ends. It provides an opportunity for a look at the collection in a way 
that does not happen every day. Inventory gives us a chance to pay 
attention to the physical collections that do not circulate often or at 
all. Inventory tells part of the library story. It tells the story of the 
numbers of items we have and do not have, the areas that need atten-
tion (replacement, repair, correction, movement [shifting]), and areas 
of growth or decline.

SJV started its retrospective conversion in 2000. That project came 
to completion in 2010, so the timing was right to begin inventory in 



176  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

2012. Over time, the number of missing items discovered in the inven-
tory process has declined. In 2012, the missing volumes totaled more 
than 1,000. In 2015, this list dropped to 257. By 2017, that had dropped 
again to 206. And at the time of this presentation in 2019, the number 
of missing items hovered around 157.

Thinking still about the inventory process, SJV has always begun 
with the smaller parts of the collection a few weeks or months before 
the regular stacks. Over past inventory projects, approximately 20,000 
items are scanned per week in the stacks. This is semi-dependent on 
staff allocated to the project. In 2012, we combined inventory with 
cleaning shelves and identifying books for repair. Two people shelf 
read as the books were replaced after cleaning. Eleven volunteers 
and three seminarians assisted in the cleaning. The cataloger was 
responsible for repair and corrections as problematic items were 
found. In 2017, SJV underwent a migration to WorldShare Manage-
ment Systems. WMS was implemented after nearly twenty years of 
SirsiDynix. It was a slightly different process. In Sirsi, the scanner 
stored the bar codes and reports were run differently. The library has 
replaced or withdrawn items following each inventory. This allows 
the Library to accurately reflect on the shelf what is in our catalog 
and vice versa.

Among other reasons, a completed inventory is important for 
insurance purposes. The collection is a moving target, because even 
as inventory is happening, new items are being added to the collec-
tion. New items will be counted during the next inventory cycle.


