ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries November 1987 / 609 realignm ent in library and university budgeting. T he tired old phrases of the library being the h eart of the university have to be backed up w ith fu n d ­ ing, or hardening of the arteries and cardiac arrest are not too far off. Personally, I believe th a t percentage funding is­ sues should become a m atter of professional ethics. If we are as good and as professional as w e say we are, then we have to be willing to back it up in term s of w here we will allow ourselves to work, and u n d er w h at conditions. O u r n atio n al sta n ­ dards will be credible only w hen every librarian applying for every job brings them up before they are hired. After all, in the words of sage Yoda from The Return o f the Jedi, “there is no ‘try ,’ there is only w h at we ‘d o . ’ ” ■ ■ O n site o b s e r v a tio n s o f a u to m a te d lib r a r y sy ste m s By Evelyn Lyons Interlibrary Loan & Online Services Librarian Millersville University A checklist to aid th e autom ation observer. T he move to autom ate library functions, to re- place m anual circulation services and card catalogs w ith integrated systems continues to gather m o­ m entum . The library autom ation industry is ap ­ proaching m aturity and smaller academ ic libraries w ith fewer resources at their com m and are coming into the autom ation m arket. In this instance, as in so m any other areas of rapid technological develop­ m ent, it is not disadvantageous to be am ong the late arrivals. Economic historians have observed th a t there is an advantage to relative backwardness. The inno­ vators struggled to design the first examples of these very complex systems and, w hen successful, were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and their sub­ stantial risk-taking. Librarians today do not have to suffer the same pain of creation nor sustain the same awesome costs. It is now possible to approach a vendor of a developed syetem and receive an esti­ m ate of the ultim ate price of an installation. Today’s autom ation m arketplace, while not ex­ actly stable, presents the sm aller academ ic library w ith the possibility of m aking a rational choice am ong com peting systems. Ganser L ibrary at Mil­ lersville University in Pennsylvania, a m em ber of a 14-unit state higher education system w ith a stu­ dent body of around 6,000, recently began its eval­ uation of the available library autom ation systems. The library faculty had form ed an autom ation com m ittee, and m any of the 14 professional lib rar­ ians began to read widely in the literature on auto­ m ation. Some took courses at schools of library sci­ ence. Nearly everyone visited vendors’ exhibits at m ajor conferences. W henever possible we sought out libraries in our region th a t have installed auto­ m ated systems. In the fall of 1986 I was granted a sabbatical leave by Millersville University to study autom a­ tion in representative libraries. The rationale for the study was th a t neither visits to vendors at con- November 1987 / 611 ferencesnor reading brochures, specifications, and evaluative literature in the professional journals re­ veals the actual texture of life in an autom ated li­ brary environment. For th at, one needs to m eet the people who w ent through the planning and instal­ lation phases and who now work w ith the systems daily. This seemed the best way to gain a solid reality-based understanding of autom ation as it ac­ tually exists in libraries. Because it is so easy to get caught up in the n a rra ­ tive of the always helpful (and usually enthusiastic) systems librarians one encounters, I w anted to go forth arm ed w ith a device for structuring an inter­ view. I began to jot down all the questions I m ight w ant to ask. As I read journal articles pointing out new pitfalls for the would-be autom ator, I inserted questions th a t reflected my newly acquired con­ cerns. Finally I sought the input of my colleagues, who came up w ith some of the most pertinent ques­ tions. From this effort an effective survey instru­ m ent developed. In actual practice I rarely m arched through the questionnaire item by item. Conversations do not flow th a t way. However, by referring to m y check­ list periodically, I found th a t I could insert my questions into the discussion. I was less likely to for­ get to cover im portant points. Since the actual in­ terviews w ith the librarians in charge of systems never fell into neat outline form, I usually just took frantic notes. W hen I returned to my study and re­ viewed my notes, I was able to fill in the blanks on my form. Notes th a t m ight have become incom pre­ hensible in tim e were easily captured. Because I had a structure for my data, inform ation acquired at a num ber of diverse libraries in interviews th at varied in form and style was organized so th a t in­ terlibrary comparisons could be made. From all the d ata certain patterns emerged. I be­ gan to develop a clearer idea of the features th a t Ganser L ibrary ought to insist on w hen the tim e a r­ rives for an RFP. Some of the pitfalls looked more threatening th an others. W e should also have a bet­ ter idea of w hat to avoid. So far my colleagues have heard one person’s view of several autom ation systems. W hen our li­ brary comes closer to the actual selection of a sys­ tem , we m ay arrange some on-site demonstrations so th a t the entire staff—professional and support personnel—will be able to make their own obser­ vations of the competing systems. The survey in­ strum ent th a t I developed could thus be of assist­ ance to the rest of the staff. To extend my assumption about the usefulness of this instrum ent I am suggesting th a t other libraries in search of an autom ated system m ight find it a helpful guide in their investigations. There are, of course, other ways to use the questionnaire. A re­ searcher could ad ap t it for the purpose of self­ adm inistration. It was, however, designed to be kept firmly in the hands of the interviewer who would use discretion in posing questions, using the flow of the discussion and and style of the inter­ viewee as a guide. As an aid to memory and a de­ vice for organizing notes, it was of great value to me. A ch eck list o n lib ra ry a u to m a tio n I. General information Institution name? Enrollm ent? L ibrary name? Contact? Address? D ate of visit? System name? Installation date? Software? H ardw are? N um ber of records? N um ber of terminals? II. Planning phase D id you use a consultant for a feasibility study For the design of an RFP? For anything else? W hat input and support did you receive from the adm inistration? From the faculty? Was the professional library staff fully involve in the decision-making process? Was the support staff? W hy did you choose this system? III. Vendor relationship How would you judge the quality of the person­ nel? Are th e re persons k n o w led g e ab le a b o u t li ­ braries? Do they respond to queries in a timely fashion? Are they available in an emergency? How would you rate the vendor’s staff in the per­ form ance of the following: Response to the RFP? Negotiation of contract? Installation or system im plem entation? Acceptance testing? Staff training? ? D ocum entation? Ongoing support? Does the vendor have a hotline? Are there users’ group meetings? Is there a newsletter? W hat are the annual m aintenance costs? d Are software enhancem ents included? W ere there added costs above contract? Any specific contract advice for my library? 612 / C&RL News IV. System operation Do you have a designated systems person(s)? W hat are his/her responsibilities? Program m ing skills on staff? Institutional support (computer center coopera­ tion)? Provisions for backup? Provisions for downtim e (i.e., micro program for circulation)? How often and for how long is system down? Is th e problem usually w ith softw are? H a rd ­ ware? Security provisions: Levels of authorization to access and change data? Provision for growth? V. The database U nitary database? How are subsystems linked? Retrospective conversion method? W hat percent was conversion complete before system was installed? Loading d ata from utility: Batch loading? Electronic transfer in real time? A uthority control for author? For subject headings? Cross-reference capabilities? Global replacement? D id commercial com pany or utility produce au­ thority files? VI. Subsystems: Capabilities and features A. Acquisitions M aintains vendor file? Generates orders? Possible to enter brief form at into OPAC? O rder status transm itted to OPAC immediately? Received (in process) status? Claiming? Fund accounting? Report features? B. Cataloging Scandinaviana The 78th Annual M eeting of the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study will be held at the University of Oregon, Eugene, April 28-30,1988. Anyone wishing to present a paper in history or the social sciences should contact Steven Koblik, D epartm ent of History, Pom ona College, C larem ont, CA 91711. All others should w rite to Virpi Zuck, D epartm ent of G erm anic Languages and Literatures, Uni­ versity of O regon, Eugene, OR 97403. The deadline for subm itting a paper proposal is D e­ cember 10, 1987. All conference participants must be paid-up members of SASS. Transfer of bibliographic records from utility? C reation of record: Uses utility? Catalogs on in­ house system? Type of barcodes? How are they generated? Autom ated label printing? Item records: How does system handle? Subject headings: W hen do they appear in cata­ log? C. Serials control Separate system or p art of acquisitions? Does system link online w ith serials vendor? Are records linked to bibliographic record? Does system support abbreviated records? Describe access points. Describe record content. Describe check-in procedure. Describe claiming. Does system print claim notices? Is there provision for bindery control? Does the report function p rin t holding list? By subject? F und accounting and reports? Does system generate orders? D. Online public access catalog Describe screen(s). Menu and/or com m and driven? Are help screens clear? O ptional quick search for experienced users? Estim ate response time. Describe d ata elements in displayed record. Describe access points. A dvanced searching techniques: Keywords? Boolean? Does the system perm it browsing? Does the OPAC im mediately reflect orders? C ir­ culation? Check-in of serial items? Are there queuing problems at OPAC? How was num ber of term inals determ ined? Do you have ports for dial access? W ho m ay use? Is there a local area network? E. Circulation control Is circulation fully integrated w ith the biblio­ graphic database? C an item records be created on the fly? C an barcoding be accomplished on the fly? How is the borrow er’s file created? Tape trans­ fer? Observe and estimate tim e for check-out and re­ turn. Describe the following processes: Overdue notices. Recalls and holds. T rapping delinquent patrons. Assigning patron circulation status. U pdating patron inform ation at check-out. How does the system handle snags? Is there a program for course reserves? Ask the contact person, “W h at would you do dif­ ferently if you had to do it again?” ■ ■