document resume ed 305 079 title academic …document resume ed 305 079 ir 052 691 title academic...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 305 079 IR 052 691
TITLE Academic Libraries Ohio. Progress throughCollaboration, Storage, and Technology. Report of theLibrary Study Committee.
INSTITUTION Ohio Board of Regents, Columbus.PUB DATE Sep 87NOTE 70p.
PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Libraries; *Information Retrieval;
*Information Storage; Library Automation; LibraryCooperation; *Library Facilities; Needs Assessment;Preservation; *Shared Library Resources; StatewidePlanning; *Technological Advancement
IDENTIFIERS Retrospective Conversion (LI.,rary Catalogs)
ABSTRACTBased on a study of the need for, and alternatives
to, significant expansion of space for state college and universitylibraries, this report discusses the resultant recommendations, whichaddress both the long term and the immediate space needs of thestate's academic libraries. Following a description of the role ofacademic libraries and a discussion of the need for space forexpanding collections and budgetary constraints, the focus of thecommittee's inquiry is examined by considering alternative solutionsto the problem in three general areas: (1) collaboration,encompassing such issues as collaborative acquisitions, sharedaccess/storage; (2) technology, including high density means ofpublication, e.g., microformats and optical disks; and (3) newstorage techniques. Conclusions and recommendations for each of thesethree areas of investigation point to a need for highly efficientstorage and library materials at lower costs, to a sharing of accessto the pooled resources of Ohio's academic libraries, and to thebenefits of future technological innovation. Six appendixes containedin 38 pages form the main body of the report. They include a summaryof the study of Ohio's state-assisted colleges and universities onwhich this report is based; reports on site visits to the Universityof California, the University of Illinois, and Harvard University; adiscussion of the book deterioration crisis; a review of availablestorage and retrieval technologies; comparable information aboutlibrary facilities; and a proposal for the retrospective conversionof bibliographic records. (43 references) (CGD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
'Or Helmutxesum.e i.s
Gartner ( roup In,.
Staitord
Dr ken BakerDear. ot Arts & SsiensesBo inc Green State
Dr Ered Carlisk.P-00,1 & 1.Nesume %.se
President .V.adenti.. \NaysMiami t rm. ersit.
Dr Noel Leathers-Professor ot Histor,,
ni%ersit, ot Akron
LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE
Dr N..! `1.:te-lensc Pr.-rdsnt to. histp..: on
Conniumt
Dr V dham MaderDirestor of 1 &runes-rne Ohio Man: Criiersai.
Dr Don lolls%erDirestor 01 labraiesKent State UnRers
1)r MartheuDirestor. Buckets &
Res urse PlanningOhio Board ot Regent,
Mr Duane R RogersDr Georgia i esh Lauri: +se Cnariellor forDear; AdministrationCollege ot Ohio Board of Regent,Cleeland State niers:t
Mr Dale McGirrVi,:e President for hn ire
of Cinsnnat,
Dr Ed 0 NellOCR. Online Com; ... r i. -an,
Center. In.Dublin
Dr Patric. ia A SkinnerDireLtor. Certificates
of AuthonzahonOhio Board of Regents
Dr E Garrison Walters-Director, Graduate &
Special ProgramsOhio Board of Regents-
Dr Charles I Pim! 1)r Elaine Hairston. ChairpersonPresident Vice Chancellor for A.adenti,Ohio l niersii and Spesial Program,
Ohio Board of Rel:ents
aACADEMIC LIBRARIES
IN OHIO
PROGRESS THROUGHCOLLABORATION,
STORAGE,AND
TECHNOLOGY
Report of the Library Study CommitteeSeptember, 1987
4
FOREWORD
The State of Ohio, like any public entity, is frequentlycharged with applying scarce resources to pressing andescalating problems. This was clearly the case a yearago when the Ohio General Assembly, alerted by theBoard of Regents to sharply expanding requests for newacademic library facilities, together with projections ofa steady-state capital budget, gave support to and di-rected the Board to "conduct a study of the need for,and alternatives to, a significant expansion of space forstate college and university libraries."
The Library Study Committee appointed to assist theBoard's staff in this task has accomplished an extrao r-dinary feat: it has brought forward recommendations thataddress both the long term and the immediate needs ofthe state's colleges and universities. These recommen-dations promise to effect major savings over previous
i
expectations of capital expenditures, and offer at thesame time the possibility of important improvements inthe quality of every institution's holdings.
The Committee's carefully crafted recommendationsspeak to highly efficient storage and library materials atstrikingly lower costs, to a sharing of access to thepooled resources of Ohio's academic libraries, and tothe benefits of future technologic innovation. As a re-sult of the comprehensive report of this Library StudyCommittee, what initiall:, speared as a difficult di-lemma can now be viewen .s 7. genuine and excitiopportunity to strengthen dramatically higher educationwithin this state. The Ohio Board of Regents and I ac-knowledge, with profound appreciation, the exemplarymanner in which the Committee fulfilled its charge.
William B. CoulterChancellor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
INTRODUCTION 1
THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 1
ISSUES OF NEED AND CONSTRAINT 2
Need 2
Two-Year College Situation 3
Current Meals of Space Management 5
Budgetary Constraints 5
FOCUS ON COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY:ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS THROUGHCOLLABORATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND NEW STORAGE TECHNIQUES 6
Collaboration 6
Recent Collaboration in Ohio 6
Access in Illinois 7
Preservation 8
Technology 10
Storage Technologies 10
Retrieval Technologies 10
Access Technologies 10
Summary Thoughts on Technology 10
Storage Alternatives 10
A VISION FOR OHIO:CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
Alternative Means of Storage 14
Collaboration 15
Technology 16
Preservation 16
Advisory Committee 16
SUMMARY 17
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF LIBRARY STUDY INQUIRYOF OHIO'S STATE-ASSISTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 19
Changes in Acquisition Rates; Impact of Technology on Space 21
Options for Limiting Space; Attitude Toward Remote Storage 22
Automation of Computer-Based Library Functions 22
Memorandum 23
Possible Outline for Responding to Library Study Inquiry 25
APPENDIX B: SITE VISIT REPORTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY 29
iris
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SITE VISIT REPORTSite Visit Team Mzmbers 31Purpose of Visit 31Meetings Were Held with the Following Individuals 31Background Information 31Description of the Facility 31Advantages of Remote High Density Storage 32Issues of Consideration Regarding Remote High Density Storage 32
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SITE VISIT REPORTSite Visit Team Members 33Purpose of Visit 33Meetings Were Held with the Following Individuals 33Library Computer System (LCS) 33Advantages 34Areas of Consideration 34Cooperative Collection Development 34Advantages 35Areas of Consideration 35Compact Storage Facility 35Advantages 35Areas of Consideration 35
HARVARD DEPOSITORY, INC., SITE VISIT REPORTSite Visit Team Members 36Purpose of Visit 36Meetings Were Held with the Following Individuals 36Background Information 36Description of the Facility 36Depositor Itrspective 37Advantages 37Areas of Consideration 37
ATTACHMENT A - HARVARD DEPOSITORYConcept 38Cost and Capacity 38Book Conservation 38Harvard Depository Description 38
APPENDIX C: THE BOOK DETERIORATION CRISIS 39Introduction 41Nature and Extent of the Problem 41Solutions to the Problem 41The Crisis in Ohio 42The Promise of Mass Deacidification 42The Relationship of Mass Deacidification and Collection Management:
Opportunities for Collaborative Efforts 43
iv
The Suitability of Ohio as Location for a Cooperative Mass Deacidification Facility 43
Ohio Conservation Committee Recommendations 44
APPENDIX D: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 45
Storage Technologies 47
Microformat 47
Optical Disk 47
Magnetic Storage 47
Retrieval Technologies 48
Circulation Systems 48
OPACs 48
Information Retrieval Systems 48
Bibliogn'phic Utilities 48
Access 48
Facsinile 48
APPENDIX E: COMPARABLE INFORMATION REGARDINGLIBRARY FACILITIES 49
CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERNREGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 51
State / Facility 51
Type of Facility 51
Description of Facility 51
Capital Building Costs 51
Capital Cost Itr Volume 51
Operating Costs 51
Cost Comparison for Traditional Library Building in California 51
Information Source 51
ILLINOIS / SIXTH STACK ADDITION 5:State I Facility 51
Type of Facility 51
Description of Facility 51
Capital Building Costs 51
Capital Cost Fbr Volume 51
Operating Costs 51
Operating Costs RI. Volume 51
Cost Comparison for Traditional Library Building in Illinois 52
Information Source 52
MASSACHUSETTS I HARVARD DEPOSITORY, INC 52
State / Facility 52
Type of Facility 52
Description of Facility 52
Capital Building Costs 52
Capital Cost Itr Volume 52
Operating Costs 52
Operating Costs Rm. Volume 52Cost Comparison for Traditional Library Building in that State 52Assumptions 52Other 52Information Source 52
APPENDIX F: A PROPOSAL FOR RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSIONOF BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS 53
Summary55
Introduction 55Proposal
57Conclusion 57
vi 9
LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The most recent capital improvement requests submittedto the Board of Regents by Ohio's public colleges anduniversities make clear that these institutions are expe-riencing a severe library space problem. It is apparentthat, unless actions are taken very soon, the shortage ofspace will threaten the quality of college and universitylibrary services and collections, and consequently, theviability of the academic endeavor.
Issues of Need and Constraint
The undeniable importance of excellence in libraries toexcellence in college and university programs makes itobvious that a solution to the existing and projectedspace problems must be found. However, it is also clearthat the use of traditional library facilities to resolve thisrapidly expanding problem would require resources farbeyond those expected to be available either in the reg-ular capital appropriations or from other sources. In con-sequence of this dilemma the Ohio General Assemblydirected the Ohio Board of Regents to: "Conduct a studyof the need for, and alternatives to, a significant expan-sion of space for state college and university libraries"(Sub. H.B. 870). The Board, in turn, appointed a Li-brary Study Committee, composed of individuals withdiverse academic, administrative, and business back-grounds, to prepare recommendations. This document isthat Committee's report.
The Role of Academic Libraries
The Library Study Committee concluded at the begin-ning of its discussions that the role of the academic li-brary must be considered in its broadest contemporarysense and that the committee should consider such op-portunities for improving the quality of libraries as mightappear in the context of its considerations. This widerperspective is necessary because the academic library oftoday has a threefold purpose, serving not only as astorehouse of information, but also as a gateway to in-formation held elsewhere, and as a center for instructionabout information.
Procedures
The Committee met over a period of nine months. Dur-ing that time it completed a study of responses to similar
vi
problems in other states, surveyed Ohio's state-assistedcolleges and universities on their present and projectedneeds for space, commissioned a consultant's report onthe status of technology and the academic library, heardtestimony from publishers on their plans for the future,and visited three universities where innovative and cre-ative steps have been taken to address not only the stor-age of library materials, but more importantly,functional, ready access to them.
Alternative Solutions
The Committee determined that there were three generalareas that needed to be addressed in order to find solu-tions to the crisis facing Ohio's academic libraries. Theyare: 1) collaboration, which encompasses a range ofissues such as collaborative acquisitions, shared access,and shared storage; 2) technology, including high den-sity means of publication such as the existing microformand the emerging compact disk; 3) alternative storage,including the various methods of maintaining rarely usedmaterials in a warehouse environment. There is signifi-cant opportunity for long-term savings in each of theseareas, but it is important to note that all either involveimportant startup costs or have the pot :ntial seriously toIL:strict user access, or both. The Committee thereforeconcluded that, while none of these approaches offersby itself the possibility of resolving the prob'em of spacein an acceptable way, a careful blend of the best featuresof each could not only respond to the anticipated con-straints but also advance the quality of academic libraryservices.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In direct response to the constraints on the capitalbudget, the Committee recommends that the state ofOhio restrict construction of traditional academia li-brary space and require public universities to exploreand pursue solutions to library space problems otherthan the construction of conventional library build-ings.
The Committee recommendv that in all cases wherespace is a problem, universities develop plans for use orconstruction of medium or high density storage space(which can be constructed for between one-half to one-fourth the cost of conventional space) in either local or
0
11011111111111111M. 111/
regional configurations in their 1987 or 1989 capital im-provement requests. The Committee also recommendsthat the Board advocate and give priority to collaborativestorage projects, and that a high density facility be builtat the Ohio State University as soon as possible. Finally,the Committee suggests criteria which might be used inevaluating proposals for conventional library facilities.
In the area of collaboration, the Committee's principalrecommendation is that Ohio move to improve the qual-ity of academic library services through the creation ofa statewide electronic catalog. This linking of librarycatalogs through an access network would, without thelaying of a single brick or the pug -hale of a single book,make all library holdings available to each library. Col-lateral recommendations include conversion of remain-ing paper records to computer format, the developmentand implementation of a statewide distribution systemfor library materials, an incentive program for collabo-rative projects, and the creation of a collaborative planto address the serious issues of preservation of booksand other vital materials endangered by acidic paper.
viii
With regard to technology, the Committee recommendsthat the Ohio Board of Regents monitor the many de-velopments, either newly extant or on the horizon, thatpromise to affect the operations and services of academiclibraries in a significant way. The Committee furtherrecommends that the Board initiate and fund with state,federal, or foundation money, studies and pilot projectsto explore the uses of new library technology.
Finally, the Committee observes that its recommenda-tions are designed to address critical objectives: highlyefficient storage of library materials at strikingly lowercosts; a major increase in access to all of the resourcesof Ohio's academic libraries; pursuit of the promise oftechnological innovation. The Committee has reinforcedthese general goals with suggestions for specific actions,but it recognizes that it cannot anticipate even thechanges that will occur in the next few years. Accordingly, the Committee's final recommendation is that theBoard of Regents designate a broadly based committeeto advise and report regularly on the implementation ofthe objectives set forth in this report.
11
INTRODUCTION
In its 1985 Capital Budget Bill Sub. H.B. 870, the OhioGeneral Assembly directed the Ohio Board of Regentsto:
"Conduct a study of the need for, and the alterna-tives to, a significant expansion of space for statecollege and university libraries."
It had become apparent durhg the most recent Capitalimprovement request process that a severe library spaceproblem exists at state assisted universities and threatensthe quality of library services and adequate housing ofcollections. The costs of dealing with the problem intraditional ways seemed prohibitive.
The Ohio Board of Regents, in response, appointed a17-member Library Study Committee. In selecting themembers of this body, the Board appointed representa-tives from among the state's academic library directorsand university academi c. and fiscal officers and included,also, individuals knowledgeable about the relevant tech-nologies, scholars with prior experience in national stud-ies in information science, and individuals with abackground in related business areas. The membershipof the Library Study Committee appears on the insidecover. This Committee spent an academic year exam-ining the issues outlined iti its chary; from ChancellorWilliam B. Coulter, which stated in part:
"While the purpose of the study is a direct conse-quence of the need to make informed decisions onthe capital budget, the scope of the Committee'swork will necessarily cover a broad range of issues
affecting the operation of academic libraries. In par-ticula , rapidly changing technologies and concom-itant changes in the conceptual approaches toinformation storage and retrieval will require carefulexamination."
Pour to the first meetiq of t' Committee, the OhioBoard of Regents assembled relevant oackground ma-terials.' This document include.: an introduction andoverview of the library space problem, a summary ofrelevant documents from other states, and a commis-sioned report on the state of library technology. In con-ducting this study, the Committee studied thebackground materials, surveyed Ohio's state-assistedcolleges and universities regarding their present andprojected needs for space (Appendix A), heard testimonyfrom publishers regarding the influence of technology inpublishing practices, and visited three universities (Ap-pendix B) where innovative and creative steps have beentaken to address not only the storage of library materials,but, more importantly, functional, ready access to them.
As the Committee went about its work, it did so with aspirit of discovery, endeavoring to bring to the OhioBoard of Regents and the Ohio General Assembly itsbest reasoned and informed judgment. The substance ofthe Committee's findings is repored in four sections: (I)The Role of Academic Libraries, (2) Issues of Net-1 andConstraint, (3) Focus of Committee Inquiry: AlternativeSolutions through Collaboration, Technology and NewStorage Techniques, and (4) A Vision for Ohio: Conclu-sions and Recommendations.
THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
Since the formation of universities in the late MiddleAges, the role of the library has been a central distin-guishing feature in the organized pursuit of knowledge.Once chained to walls and accessible only to a privilegedfew, books and manuscripts moved from monasteries tothe shelves within secular universities and private li-braries after the invention of the printing press in themid-fifteenth century. Since then those shelves havegrown in extraordinary ways as the printed page prolif-erated, especially in the twentieth century. Publishing
has expanded dramatically, and in recent years has be-come a virtual flood. The rapidity of information growthin t1.-- last twenty-five years has eclipsed whatever thewor,i has previously known. Now information presum-
'Hairston. Elaine H , Edward O'Neill. and Patncal Skinner. Li-brary Study Committee Background Materials Ohio Board of Regents.Columbus. Ohio. September. 1986 (Available on request from theOhio Board of Regents. 30 E. Broad Strce:. Columbus. Ohio 43266-04 7
12
ably doubles every ten to fifteen years. This virtual ex-plosion of knowledge and concomitant growth anddiversification of academic programs has resulted in un-foreseen demands on the setvices and storage capacitiesof academic libraries.
Besides collecting current materials and information tosupport academic programs, academic libraries, and re-search libraries especially, also serve as repositories forinformation which is rare, esoteric, and of great disci-plinary depth. This special role has increased the de.mands upon library storage and has created, particularlyin an age of information explosion, a shortage of spacein academic libraries across America today.
Libraries are judged by their collections and their abilityto respond in a timely way to the information needs oftheir patrons. Their purpose is to provide access to in-formation from their own holdings and from those ofother libraries. The concept of the library today is chang-ing rapidly from one of a space-bound Institution thathouses sithin its own walls all the information that anyuser might require, to one of a gateway to knowledgea "meta-library" or a library without walls. This newlibrary would give users access to information not only
all over campus and throughout the State, but also acrossthe country and, in some cases, around the world.
In certain computer-based systems, for example, patronscan search electronic "card" catalogs and databasesfrom remote locations. In others, with a press of a keyor the pass of a bar code reader, books can be chargedfrom a lib:ary at one institution and even delivered tousers at another. Today's academic libraries only hint attomorrow's promise of greater access, responsiveness,and comprehensiveness. Such promise, hov,..wer, re-quires laying foundations, and fentd2'^ns that todayappear cloaked in the problem of storage may in factprovide the opportunity to enhance significantly Ohio'sacademic enterprise. The library, with its threefold roleas a storehouse of information, a gateway to informationheld elsewhere, and a center for instruction aoout infor-mation, remains at the core of higher education.
The State of Ohio now has an opportunity to secure andreinforce its investment in higher cf_II:catio. through thedevelopment of innovative approaches to resolving theproblems of storage and access to information that faceits colleges and universities.
ISSUES OF NEED AND CONSTRAINT
In its initial effort to understand the magnitude of ad-ditional space needs in Ohio's college and universitylibraries, the Library Study Committee surveyed Ohio'sstate-assisted higher education institutions regarding li-brary space needs and then sought to relate these needsto the limited capital resources available from the Stateof Ohio. A discussion of both provides important back-ground for understanding the committee's recommen-dations.
Need
Indications of a serious need for additional library spacesurfaced in the 1986 capital budget requests from Ohio'scollege,. and universities. For the three biennia for whichcapital plans were solicited (1987-1992), library-relatedrequests amounted to $121.7M. The universities wererequesting the addition of traditional facilities to supportnew or expanded programs, as well as the replacementof obsolete or worn out facilities. A significant portion
2
of the requests for new library space related to the largeand annually expanding number of published materialswhich academic libraries require to support educationalprogramming 2nd which they are expected to store. Itappears that for at least the next decade projected capitalexpenditures for libraries are essentially open-ended. Al-most every university and a number of colleges will re-quire additional or replacement library space.Furthermore, after a ten-year construction cycle, i! islikelyif only traditional solutions are pursuedthatthe pattern of needs and requests would begin anew.With no real end in sight, the prospective costs are trulyformidable.
The survey conducted by the Library Study Committeereveals that the capital requests received in 1986 aresymptomatic of an impending crisis because Ohio's a.>ademic libraries are either full already or will be fullsoon. This is not at all surprising, for many university
13
libraries were built or expanded twenty to thirty yearsago, with an estimated storage capacity at the time ofapproximately twenty to twen.y-te years. The OhioState University, for example, was forced to resort tounsatisfactory warehousing for over 100,000 volumes in1986, and expects to add substantially to that total insucceeding years. Housed in facilities not designed forlibrary storage, books are poorly cared for and difficultto access.
Based on current acquisition rates, if libraries continueto fulfill their missions, Ohio's universities will needapproximately 109 miles of new shelving space to ac -commodate additional materials in the next decadealone. (See Table I) This mileage translates into400,000-50C AO square feet of conventionally arrangedstack space, or an increase of over 30% of the libraryshelf space currently in existence. This calculation doesnot even address the problem of replacing aging, obso-
a
--.1.-cab!!!!?;
lete, or deteriorating library space.
'rabic I charts an estimate of the miles of additionallibrary shelving which will be needed by university li-braries during the next ten years, assuming the currentacquisition rates.
Two-Year College Situation. Because the two-year sys-tem is relatively new compared to the university system,it evears that, for the most part, the storage issues con-fronting university libraries do not apply to the two-yearschools. Materials have simply not been accumulatedover a comparable length of time. Moreover, technicalprograms emphasize current materials and do not requirefrequent access to older or historical sources. Two-yearlibraries weed their collections (i.e., discard older ma-terials) vigorously. As a result of these factors, the basicgeneral raucation collections of community colleges andregional campuses are relatively stable.
'Iasti
3
14
TABLE 1VOLUMES HELD BY UBRARIES OF THE 13 STATE-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES IN OHIO
INSTITUTIONS
VOLS. INUB.
6130/86
VOLS. INLINEARFEET'
VOLS.IN
MILES"
VOLS.ADDED1985/86
VOLS. INUNEARFEET*
VOLS.IN
MILES"
ADDITbONALMILES IN
TEN YEARS
Univ. of Akron 1,040,378 115,597 21.9 41,181 4,576 .87 8.7
Bowling GreenState Univ.
1,172,889 130,321 24.7 45,377 5,042 .95 9.5
Central StateUniv.
148,921 16,547 3.1 3,592 399 .08 .8
Cincimati,Univ. of
1,736,978 192,997 36.6 71,726 7,970 1.51 15.1
Cleveland P-...dUniv.
680,488 75,610 14.3 18,085 2,009 .38 3.8
Kent State Univ. 1,609,598 178,844 33.9 39,661 4,407 .84 8.4
Miami Univ. 1,087,014 120,779 22.9 29,142 3,238 .61 6.1
Ohio State Univ. 4,077,575 453,064 85.8 110,862 12,318 2.33 23.3
Ohio I iniv. 1,284,130 142,681 27.0 54,025 6,003 1.14 11.4
Shawnee State Univ. 70,421 7,825 1.5 1,495 166 .03 .3
Univ. of Toledo 1,3-.3,348 149,261 28.3 53,721 5,969 1.13 11.3
Wright State Univ. 604,886 67,210 12.7 20,560 2,284 43 4.3
Youngstown StateUniv.
656,683 72,965 13.8 28,164 3,129 .59 5.9
15,513,309 1.723,701 326.5 517,591 57,510 10.89 108.9326.5435.4
'Volumes are divided by 9 to obtain linear feet of volumes with 9 as the average number of volumes in one linear foot**To obtain rules of volumes represented, linear feet are divided by 5,280
cr 1 1 ,5a'
Because two-year campuses serve an extensive non-tra-ditional college population, their libraries often serve aslearning centers to a greater extent than do their fouryear counterparts. These centers or learning laboratoriesprovide audiocassette, videocassette, computers, and au-diotutorial equipment and materials to complementclassroom learning or provide prescribed individualizedlearning opportunities for students. Such learning aidsare significant space-users.
It seems likely that additional or remodeled space re-quirements in the two-year system will relate mainly toinstruction and learning support requirements. Indeed,_.:sufficient funds for current acquisitions is the greaterconcern for the two-year college libraries.
Current Means of Space Management. Ohio's aca-demic libraries have been trying to cope with tlrir stor-age problems in a variety of ways. Many tempt .y andunsatisfactory measures have been taken to find addi-tional space for shelving. Most commonly, libraries havereplaced seating and study space with bookshelves andhave thereby lost necessary reading and work space forusers. As a result, many academic libraries have becomecrowded, making it difficult for users to gain ready ac-cess to the materials necessary for effective study. Someinstitutions have also reassigned office, classroom orother campus space for library purposes. While suchaction may relieve immediate patron congestion and easeacute storage problems, it may at the same time interferewith other important institutional purposes and, in thelong run, lead only to other probic.:ns.
While weeding is a commonly used device for limitingcollection growth in two-year colleges, it is less effectivein university libraries. Universities primarily purchasefor permanent retention and maintain collections farlarger than two-year colleges. Studies on weeding as aspace-saving strategy for university libraries suggest thatthe time, effort, and staff resources required make thisa solution of limited effectiveness. Even when it is usedin large libraries, it does not appreciably slow the rateof collection growth.
Finally, many institutions have made major efforts topurchase more materials in microformats, which enjoya major size advantage ow. print counterparts. How-ever, while such materials can be stored in less spacethan conventional material, the reaoing stations and mi-croformat printers require space of their own. Moreover,
most users generally dislike microformats. These points,taken together with the fact that microformat substitutesare available for relatively few printed materials, limitthe potential of inicrofornis to achieve dramatic spacesavings.
It is apparent that despite earnest efforts to address li-brary space problems, the information explosion andgrowth in Ohio's academic programs make the need foradditional storage for library materials very real indeed.
Budgetary Constraints
It is perhaps obvious that there are siznificant budgetconstraints which restrict the ability of the State and theuniversities to address the library needs presented above.,Nevertheless, it is useful to discuss briefly the followingbasic axiom in the present context:
The demand for public services will always exceed theavailable public resources. Therefore, maximizing theefficiency with which ?ublic funds are applied to a par-ticular public need is essential.
Identifying alternative, efficient ways to meet the libraryfacility needs of Ohio's colleges and universities willhave two important effects:
1. It will help limited state capital appropriations meetthe many other facilities needs of colleges and uni-versities more effectively.
z. Since these facilities appropriations are supported bystate issued debt that must be repaid, minimizing thenecessary capital expense will also minimize the re-sulting debt service burden on the state's operatingbudget for higher education.
The Committee was given a comprehensive briefing onthe past and projected trends in higher education debtservice requirements in the State's operating budget. Thedebt service has been growing rapidly, and it is becom-ing a larger percentage of total operating appropriationsfor higher education. This information intensified theCommittee's appreciation for the general constraints onpublic resources, since it concludes that the total of fu-ture higher education capital appropriations should beeven more constrained than in the previous few biennia.
Thus, we need ways of meeting facilities needs with the
3 16
least total costs to help limit the growth of future debtservice
Recognizing the importance of budget constraints, the
Committee searched for basic approaches which mightlead to improvements in cost, efficiency. and effective-ness. The results of that search are discussed in the nextsection of this report.
FOCUS OF COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY:ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS THROUGH COLLABORATION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND NEW STORAGE TECHNIQUES
During its study of alternatives to the library space needsof Ohio's colleges and universities, the Committee wasguided by four major assumptions:
1. That the improvement in quality of academic librariesis integral to Ohio's effort to provide excellent insti-tutions of higher education.
2. That the efficient maximization of investment in li-brary resources should always enhance access andservice to users.
3. That college and university libraries are among themost highly shareable of all higher education re-sources.
4. That limits to capital investment in new buildings are.indeed, real, and have great significance in the issueof overall library needs.
The Committee explored three primary alternatives: col-laboration, technology, and storage.
Collaboration
Recent Collaboration in Ohio. In Ohio, and indeed inthe United States generally, a willingness and predis-position of libraries to cooperate with one another havelong existed. From interlibrary loan to the shared de-velopment of automated systems, librarians have endea-vored to buttress the work of one another. In 1967,Ohio's colleges and universities, with assistance fromthe Ohio Board of Regents, cooperatively created theOhio College Library Center (OCLC), a nonprofit mem-bership organization. Since renamed the Online Com-puter Library Center, OCLC now provides onlinecataloging, interlibrary loans, and other library servicesto some 7,000 libraries worldwide utilizing a member-
6
contributed database of over 15 million bibliographicrecords to which are currently attached some 270 millionlibrary location symbols.
Thus, economies of shared cataloging and consequentbenefits of improved access to library collections werethe principal reasons for the creation of OCLC's pioneer-ing computer-based statewide cataloging system early inthe 1970's. While this system has permitted the sharingof books and journals among many Ohio libraries andwith other libraries across the country, it is, neverthelessnot zurrently configured or designed to meet the require-ments of the online catalog system the Library Com-mittee believes is necessary for Ohio's future.
Even .rough OCLC, complete access to Ohio's aca-demic library collections is currently not possible, sincenot all catalog records prior to 1971 have been convertedto machine-readable form and made available within theOCLC database. The completion of retrospective con-version of these bibliographic records is essential forcomplete access to Ohio's library resources.
The majority of Ohio's 135 academic and 250 publiclibraries obtain OCLC services and products throughOHIONET, a state-level network, and participate inother OHIONET-based cooperative ventures and ser-vices as well. Many of Ohio's libraries also belong toregional library cooperatives (organized by county ormetropolitan areas) whose primary missions are facili-tation of resource sharing and the answering of referencequestions. The thirteen state-assisted university libraries.which provided some 170,000 interlibrary loans in 1985/86 (the majority to other Ohio libranes), provide recip-rocal on-site borrowing privileges fc,: faculty and grad-uate students, as well as waiving all charges forinterlibrary loans among the group.
1/
It should also be noted that at least eight of these 13libraries have automated local systems for circulationcontrol. In some cases, these systems also serve as asupplement to or substitute for the card catalog. Thesystems are of different brands and vintage and thereforedo not intercommunicate, but several offer no-chargedial access h, those who find it useful.
But as productive as these and many other forms ofcooperation among Ohio libraries have been, new formsof collaboration, which can more effectively promoteand facilitate the sharing of libmry resources, while sec-ondarily providing the context and potential for somedegree of cooperative collection development, are nowpossible. A brief case study of the efforts of the Stateof Illinois is instructive.
Access in Illinois The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has the largest publicly supported academiclibrary in the United States and the third largest researchlibrary in the U.S. (after Harvard and Yale) with hold-ings of approximately seven million volumes. This li-brary resides within a state which has historically placeda high value on libraries and their collections. In addi-tion, within Illinois government, the Office of the Sec-retary of State, who is designated in statute as the StateLibrarian, has provided sustained leadership operatingunder the principle that academic libraries are part of thestate's resources and therefore deserve state support fromthat office. Within this environment, the University ofIllinois has implemented a comprehensive, brief-recordon-line circulation/catalog system which is searchable byauthor, title, and classification (subject) number, andalso indicates whether a given item is charged out. Ifcharged, a save may be placed, and the book will au-tomatically be sent upon its return.
This statewide Library Computer System (called LCS)allows the user to browse the "electronic shelf:' findingother books on a topic if the specifically sought title isnot available. It allows a patron at any one of the 29academic libraries whose catalog records are currentlyin this database to search directly the titles held at allother locations and to charge them out by computer ter-minal. Thus, in Illinois, the patron has access not onlyto the local library's materials, but also to those of 28others, which include over 16 million volumes and rep-resent over 9 million titles. A courier system providesdocument delivery around the state with a promise ofreceipt within 2-10 days, depending on the location ofthe borrowing and lending libraries.
8
This rich bibliographic database is also available forsearching only to any library in Illinois which has acomputer terminal with dial-up capability. Interlibraryloans, however, must be effected through the headquar-ters library in one of the eighteen Regional Library Sys-tems. Plans anticipate that by 1992 there will be anincrease in the number of directly participating librariesfrom the current 29 to about 60 (including many publiclibraries), thus greatly enlarging the database and in-creasing the volume of interlibrary loans transacted viathe system which numbered 305,000 in 1985/86.
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has alsoimplemented a full bibliographic record online catalog(called FBR) which additionally allows searching by se-ries title, subject headings, and key words (singly or incombination) anywhere in the record. This advancedsystem, a true substitute for and improvement over thecard catalog, will also become a statewide resourcethrough the inclusion of all machine-readable catalogrecords created to date through OCLC by all Illinoislibraries, thus making it a substantial statewide catalog;and any library may also elect tn use the system as itslocal online catalog.
These automated systems constitute a statewide resourceand service which has been developed to enhance theuse of diverse library collections that represent signifi-cant investments on the part of the State of Illinois. Ina time of limited budgets, the linkage of available re-sources not only has the potential to maximize what isalready held, but it also implies the possibility of plan-ning collections for statewide access through cooperativecollection development.
Illinois has begun to encourage a cooperative collectionmanagement strategy among its academic libraries. Cur-rently this endeavor consists of a statewide committee(Cooperative Collection Development Committee)which has been given seed money under the IllinoisHigher Education Cooperation Act to provide grants tolibraries for cooperative collection development activi-ties. Using the LCS database, the Committee has com-piled profile information regarding the quantity of thelibrary collections represented in LCS by stratifying allrecords into 495 subject categories. They are also de-veloping a "quality" indicator evaluation mechanism toassess which libraries have the best collections in givensubject areas. To date, qualitative analyses have beenundertaken for a relatively small number of the subject
divisions, as such analysis is tremendously labor inten-sive.
Clearly these several cooperative library developmentsin Illinois have had very tangible, far-reaching benefits.It is believed that much more progress lies ahead.Whether adaptation of either the Illinois model or de-velopment of one unique to Ohio's existing resourceswould be advantageous and affordable for Ohio ob-viously requires much more extensive study and analy-sis; but there is strong reason and evidence to concludethat the library access that has been accomplished inIllinois, as well as what is planned, warrants very seriousand thorough scrutiny for possihle application in thisState.
Preservation. Beyond access, it is apparent that the is-sue of preservation requires collaborative attention. Pa-per upon which books have been printed in the lastcentury (and which publishers still use today) is highlyacidic and therefore becomes brittle and disintegratesover time. This seriousand very expensivematter re-quires seeking a collaborative solution for repair of heldvolumes, climatized storage for endangered collections,photocopy reproductions, microfilming or use of opticaldisk technology to salvage valuable scholarly materials.Also required is the study of deacidification technologieswhich can preclude the rapid deterioration of newer pub-lications. Appendix C provides a useful discussion ofthese serious matters from the perspective of academiclibraries.
8
I
19
'61111VILAILI.
9
20
-
Technology
The modern library can trace its technological origins tothe invention of the pri fling press which made the bookand journal as we know them possible. With printingcame the information explosion and the development ofthe massive libraries of today. Since Gutenberg, printinghas been the dominant technology for libraries. But, asnew technologies are maturing to propel libraries andlibrary users into a new era, futurists are predicting theend of print's domination.
The Library Study Committee has carefully examinedthe application of existing technologies and has made aconsiderable effort to understand the potential of newdevelopments. The following is a brief description of themajor technologies and technological issues that are af-fecting or beginning to affect in a significant way theoperations of libraries. They are descr;bed in greater de-tail in Appendix D.
There are three principal areas in which technologypromises to affect the development of libraries: storage,retrieval, and access.
Storage Technologies. Microformats, which have beenin use for some time, have great potential to save spacebut, as noted above, their relatively limited availability,the space required for associated equipment and moreimportantly user resistance will likely restrict theirability significantly to ameliorate further the storage cri-sis. Microformats have proven archival quality, althoughthe expense of filming makes this an impractical ap-proach to preservation unless done on a collaborativebasis.
Computer-based storage systems, particularly the var-ious kinds of optical disks, have the potential to storevast quantities of information in a more effective mannerthan microformats and at a cost which might well beattractive for many kinds of publications. Still, this tech-nology is quite new and there are many unknowns. Towhat extent, for example, will publishers adopt this for-mat? In which areas and for what kinds of material willusers prefer this medium? Are the materials employedstable enough to be considered archival?
The Library Study Commieee believes that the increaseduse of computers, together with the potential of r pticaldisk technology, will significantly influence libraries andlibrary storage. However, it is not apparent how quickly
10
this technology will affect the need for additional stor-age, and therefore, with some frustration, the Committeebelieves that carefully following and experimenting withtechnological developments may be the only course ofaction the State can realistically follow at this time.
Retrieval Technologies. Technology has already had atremendous effect on libraries through such develop-ments as electronic circulation systems and catalogs. Theexploding popularity of electronic databases such asOhio-based Mead Data, Compuserve, OCLC, andChemical Abstracts, promises to increase the use of li-braries as patrons seek to locate the information refer-enced by such databases.
Access Technologies. Technology is also developingwhich will help the user access information remotely,allowing many users to employ the resources of the li-brary without physically entering it or removing itsbooks and journals. Facsimile transmission, which sendsa copy of a document from a library machine over atelephone line to another machine at the user's location,is one means of accomplishing this, but facsimile is ex-pensive in labor, telecommunications, and equipment.Direct access to online text is another means. All of thesefactors should become less of a barrier over time.
Summary Thoughts on Technology. The technologiesthat will affect libraries are broad in their implicationsfor the future design of libraries. They will help trans-form libraries from repositories of information into gate-ways to information. However, it is very difficult tounderstand at this time the eventual direction the tech-nologies will take. By the turn of the century, some willlikely have a profound effect; therefore, careful attentionmust be paid to technological development.
Storage Alternatives
In the conventional view, an academic library sits in acentral campus location, and is ideally designed for util-ization of the treasure that it holds. Books are generallyshelved in call number order and are available for brows-ing in well-lighted, climate-controlled stacks. Readingspace for students and other patrons is abundant, and allthe resources one might need are in the library's currentholdings. This image, unfortunately, ril longer reflectsthe reality of academic libraries in Ohio. Were one toexamine the many well-planned and bzautifully built li-braries of this century, the reality of study space dis-placed by shelving, cramped quarte:s for users, books
21
7'
...11"'''''Z'A 16 4 .1."`"
/:;.vts''rt.
"
ikt*ot*,,
22
.Ltsmam:
unavailable because tt ey are warehoused, physically de-teriorating collections, and increasingly inadequatebudgets would unfortunately be all too evident.
As other states and private universities have examinedthe urgent issue of space, they have developed severalconstruction alternatives to the expansion of conven-tional library space. Most frequently these alternativesinclude combinations of compact shelving and off-bitehigh-density housing of library materials. In reviewingseveral storage innovations, the Committee tried to keepthe library user in mind and evaluated alternatives ac-cordingly.
In general, library patrons believe that accessibility andproximity significantly influence the effective use ofstored library materials. User accessibility can be deter-mined with answeis to these simple questions: Is thestorage area open (at least potentially) or is it closed tousers? Is it possible for users to browse the collections,
z*,21,1401,1;
12
to determine the availability not only of specific volumesthey may have been seeking, but also of related workswith which they are not familiar but which might be ofgreat value to their research? The issue of shelf browsingis important to users because, on the one hand, this is a
research approach which is widely perceived to be im-portant to everyone from general users to scholars, andbecause, on the other hand, most low-cost approachesto storage do not permit it.
Proximity is a related but nonetheless different matter.Users typically believe that they are better served if li-brary materials are stored close to the majority of theuser population. Even if patrons have direct physicalaccess to library books and materials, the value of theservice will be diminished if the user has to travel toanother library or to some kind of storage facility. Ifdirect access is not permitted, then users might well be-lieve that the quality of service has been diminished evenmore because distance increases delays in the deliveryof materials to the user's location.
4,3
Ideally then, in order to provide ready physical accessto library materials, academic libraries should buildmore conventional space on campus to house their grow-ing collections and should also acquire collections thatare virtually self-sufficient. Neither is possible, ofcourse, under currentand very likely futurefiscalcircumstances. So once again, the conventional solutionsto problems and budget constraints conflict, and it isnecessary to examine ahem tives.
In doing so, the Committee has analyzed the alternativeslargely in terms of "density." Predictably, as with otherissues impacting library stoizge, density is of increasingimportance as the rrobiems of storage costs becomemore acute. The traditional library with open, browsableshelves, is described as a "low density" storage facility.Books are stored according to the order in which they
AIIMMI111111111
are classified by subject (i.e., "call number order"), anapproach which requires that unused space be left oneach shelf to permit the insertion of additional volumes,precluding the need for frequent (and expensive) shiftingof collections. Shelving in call number order is also in-herently inefficient in that space must be provided forthe tallest books, thereby wasting a great deal of verticalarea between shelves for the sake of accommodating the
call number order.
"Medium density" storage can take several forms. One,compact moveable shelving, like that installed at theUniversity of Illinois, compresses aisle space in a waythat permits users to enter only one aisle at a time in aspecific stack area. Medium density storage might alsosave space by putting new books and volumes over acertain size in separate areas. Although the variations on
this type make generalizations difficult, a typical me-dium density facility would reduce direct accessibilitysomewhat compared to the typical low density space,but it would be more cost effective. Medium densityfacilities, as a rule, could save as much as half the costof conventional library storage space.
"High density" facilities also take a variety of forms,but some general characteristics are apparent. Typically,only rarely used but nevertheless valuable materials areplaced in high density repositories. Volumes are storedby size rather than in call number order. Shelving islikely to be very compact, for example, two deep (i.e.,books literally out of sight, behind others) as in the Uni-versity of California's Northern Regional Library Facil-ity, or in boxes on towering shelves as at the HarvardBook Depository. Electronic access systems are criticalto the successful operation of any high density storagefacility. In a high density storage facility, there is norealistic possibility of direct user access via shelf brows-
ing. High density facilities could save as much as three-fourths of the cost of conventional storage space.
If one uses accessibility and proximity as imoortantmeasures, then the circumstances under which these fa-cilities are effective become clearer. A high density fa-cility is by definition closed to users and consists ofrarely used materials; therefore, its locationor prox-imityis r% so important. Because of cost, there wouldbe little point in a low density facility that was not alsoopen (fully accessible) and strategically located for op-timum use. Similarly, when cost is taken into account,medium density cacilities should be at least relativelyopen, otherwise a high density facility would probablyprovide a better solution. There seems little value in amedium density facility that is inconveniently locatedfrom its users.
Given present technology, the relationship between ac-cessibility and costs is a direct one: a higher degree ofaccessibility results in a higher cost, and vice versa.
A VISION FOR OHIO: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Ohio's academic libraries have grown and developedover the course of decades into a major information re-source. They are an asset that reflects the diversity ofacademic programming in Ohio's colleges and univers-ities, a diversity responsive to the educational needs ofOhio's citizens. This major resource is decentralized,except through the important linkage provided by theOCLC database.
The library survey and the capital requests for nov orexpanded library space tellingly mark the status of in-dividual acadmic libraries in Ohio today. Their imme-diate and pressing space requests point only too clearlyto the need for a library strategy for higher educationthat is visionary, collaborative, and space efficient.
It is apparent that a multifaceted, considered approachto the resolution of space need is demanded. With theseimportant thoughts in mind, the Library Study Commit-tee recommends that the State of Ohio restrict con-struction of traditional academic library space andrequire public universities w explore and pursue so-lutions to library space problems other than the con-struction of conventional library buildings.
14
Alternative Means of Storage
1. The Library Study Committee has reached the con-clusion, based on its extensive analysis of develop-ments elsewhere, that medium-density storage can beconstructed for a little over half, and high density forabout one fourth, the cost of traditional low-densitystorage (see Appendix E). The extremely low con-struction and operating costs of the Harvard BookDepository provide promising solutions to storage ofinfrequently used materials, freeing conventionalshelf space for more active pairs of the collection.These global cost data are so significant that the Li-brary Study Committee believes that colleges anduniversities must begin immediately to develop stra-tegies to incorporate medium and high density facil-ities into their library planning.
2. The Library Study Committee recommends thatwhere shelving or storage space is a problem, uni-versities develop plans for use or construction ofmedium or high density storage space in eitherlocal or regional configurations and include thoseplans in their 1987 or 1989 capital improvement
25
requests. These plans should include informationabout access and distribution and preliminary sug-gestions for removing rarely used items from existinglibrary space to a high density depository.
3. The Library Study Committee recommends that ahigh density facility be built at The Ohio StateUniversity with funds from the next biennial cap-ital appropriation. The facility at Ohio State shouldbe available to assist other universities with their stor-age needs until further such construction it other lo-cales is justified and completed.
The Committee further believes that no more thanthree or four such facilities will be needed statewidein the next decade. The minimum capacity of eachsuch facility should be on the order of 1.5 to 2 millionvolumes.
4. The Library Study Committee recommends that theOhio Board of Regents advocate and give priorityto collaborative projects, such as regional highdensity storage, cooperative acquisition plans, andregional networks. Where such projects would notbe feasible because of location, scale, or mission, theOhio Board of Regents should then consider moreconventional solutions, but only under stringent re-view critera.
5, The Library Study Committee recommends theOhio Board of Regents use the following criteriafor evaluating capital requests for conventionallibrary construction, rehabilitation of existingspace, and construction of alternative storage orprogram space:
A. The Board should consider evidence from eachinstitution:
a. that library shelving or storage space has beenor soon will be exhausted;
b. that space for other primary functions has be-come extremely crowded (e.g. patron and staffspace);
c. that the institution's library storage problemscannot be relieved through collaborative ap-proaches;
.16
d. that each institution is using or planning to useavailable high density storage for rarely usedmaterials;
e. that library storage or other functions have im-pinged on space built for classroom, office, orresearch purposes;
f. that the libraries have made every reasonableeffort, such as the reconfiguration or reassign-ment of space and the use of medium densitystorage, to make better use of ex;sting space;
g. that ,echnological innovations do not providean alternative to building additional space;and,
h. that deterioration or obsolescence mandatesthe replacement of existing library space.
B. The Ohio Board of Regents should also considerprogram criteria, such as:
a. the number and level of graduate L' 'ree pro-grams, along with the extent of research ac-tivity;
b. the extent to which existing collections are al-ready strong and the desirability of capitaliz-ing on those strengths;
c. the ability of some libraries to fulfill a majorback-up role for other libraries, therefore (pos-sibly) justifying both collection and buildinggrowth; and
d. the ability of certain libraries to join fruitfullyin collaborative acquisition and collection de-velopment programs.
Collaboration
Space limitations and storage needs for library materialsprompted this study, and the foregoing recommendationssuggest cost saving solutions to these urgent problems.But, as this report stated in the beginning, opportunitysometimes comes cloak.,d as a problem. The opportunityexists for Ohio to make a major qualitative leap forwardfor its academic libraries. The linking of library catalogsthrough an access network would, without the laying of
a brick or the purchase of a book, make all library hold-ings available to each library. With electronic access,the user's gateway to the state's library resources swingswide open. Such access would be a major step forward,and in the long run, statewide collaboration will, theCommittee believes, change the pattern of library ex-penditures and limit the need for additional, conven-tional library space.
The Library Study Committee recommends that theState of Ohio implement as expeditiously as possiblea statewide electronic catalog system. To the extentfeasible, this statewide system should complement localsystems and be accessible through them. Collaborativecollection development projects, which should becomeconsiderably more practicable when this catalog is im-plemented, should be encouraged.
1. The Library Study Committee recommends that theOhio Board of Regents complete, within one year,a detailed five-year plan for implementing thestatewide electronic catalog system. The planshould include an analysis of the requirements for thesystem, a calendar for completing the necessary stepsor phases, and a detailed cost study. This catalogshould be fully operational among publicly-assistedacademic institutions within five years. It should bemade available (or accessible) within seven years toprivate college, large public, and other libraries thatwish and are prepared to join the system.
2. The Library Study Committee recommends that theState of Ohio fund the university librarians' planfor converting existing catalog records to ma-chine-readable form. (See Appendix F) This retro-spective conversion is necessary to make thestatewide online system fully effective and should,therefore, be completed in parallel with the statewideelectronic catalog system.
3. The Library Study Committee recommends the de-velopment and implementation of a statewide dis-tribution system for library materials.
4. The Library Study Committee recommends thatthe Ohio Board of Regents develop an incentiveplan to expand collaborative collection develop-ment projects that will, over time, strengthen theState's collections and lead eventually to space andcost savings.
16
Technology
1. The Library Study Committee concludes, after its ex-ploration of technology, that there are many devel-opments on the horizon that will affect libraries in avery significant way. At this point, however, it isdifficult for the Committee to assess the present na-ture and timing of the changes. It is clear that tech-nology will not appreciably diminish the problem ofstorage at least within the next decade.
Therefore, the Library Study Committee recom-mends that the Ohio Board of Regents monitordevelopments in information technology whichwould affect the operations and services of theState's academic libraries. Such monitoring willhelp the State plan for the effects of technology onfuture library operating and capital budgets. Therewill very likely be a period when libraries will haveto bear the burden of paying for conventional serviceswhile simultaneously phasing in new technology.
2. In order to help understand and plan for develop-ments in library technology, the Library Study Com-mittee further recommends that the Ohio Board ofRegents initiate and fund with state, federal, orfoundation money, studies and pilot projects toexplore the uses of new library technology. Ap-proved projects should advance understanding of tireshort- and long-term effectiveness of the new tech-nology. The projects should emphasize improved ac-cess and service to users. They should address, aswell, matters of space, capital and operating costs,with the long-range goal of reducing the rate of in-creased library expenditures
Preservation
The Library Study Committee recommends that theOhio Board of Regents develop a collaborative planto address the serious issues of preservation of thecontent of brittle books in Ohio's academic librariesand the deacidification of more current materials toprevent their turning brittle. A task force to conducta collections condition study and prepare a remedial planof action could draw upon the expertise of preservationofficers already on library staffs.
Advisory Committee
The Library Study Committee recommends that theOhio Board of Regents designate a broadly based
27
committee to advise, assist, and report regularly onthe implementation of these recommendations. As thestatewide system or structure Zlegins to form, the OhioBoars ef Regents or the State should establish a morepermanent coordinating structure for the statewide, on-
line system, storage facilities, and other collaborativeacademic library projects. The responsibility for insti-tuting and overseeing the statewide system should notrest with any single institution, nor should any one in-stitution determine the technology for the whole system.
SUMMARY
3efore closing, the Library Study Committee believes itis important to share its sense of the advantages of thedirections presented in this report. The key recommen-dations speak to highly efficient storage of library ma-terials at strikingly lower costs, a major increase inaccess to all of the resources of Ohio's academic librar-ies, and pursuit of the promise of technological inno-vation. The urgency of meeting the storage needs oflibraries has become a qualitative imperative which,given tht limited capital investment funds available, canonly be satisfied by an approach such as that described
and recommended here. Each Ohio acnlemic library willtake a quantum leap as it taps the resources of fifteenmillion volumes through the proposed access system.This major qualitative move forward in access occursalong with major cost avoidance (through new storageand access options).
The Library Study Committee sees, therefore, not onlyan amenable solution to a vexing problem called storage,but a clear and present major opportunity for movingOhio's academic libraries forward.
17
28
APPENDIX A
Summary of Library Study Inquiryof Ohio's State-AssistedColleges and Universities
19 29
SUMMARY OF LIBRARY STUDY INQUIRY OF OHIO'S STATE-ASSISTEDCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
This Appendix contains a summary of the general trendsand concerns expressed by the institutions responding tothe Library Study Inquiry which was sent by the Chan-cellor to all Ohio state-assisted college and universitypresidents in November, 1986. In the Library Study In-quiry, institutions were asked to provide informationabout the following general topics:
1. Acquisitions Rates and Impact of Technology onSpace
2. Patran Use of Facilities
3. Anticipated Need for Additional Space and Alterna-tive
4. Types of Collaboration/Network in Existence
5. Automation of Computer -Rased Library Functions
Responses were compiled by the Library Study Com-mittee in separate reports for two-year and four-year in-stitutions. A comparison of the response by the two typesof institutions shows similarity in certain areas, but moreimportantly a number of clear and fundamental differ-ences both in regard to present conditions and concernsand in the changes envisioned for the future. This sum-mary is a consolidation of these two reports, noting areasof convergence and divergence indicated by the re-sponses.
Changes in Acquisition Rates and Impact of Tech-nology on Space
Although both types of institutions projected growth inacquisitions, there were differences in the type and di-rection of such growth. The senior graduate researchinstitutions expected great expansion in the area of tra-ditional book and periodical holdings while communitycolleges envisioned a concentration more on the devel-opment of materials suitable for computer-assisted learn-ing. Space needs for shelving were greatest in the largerinstitutions with extensive graduate programs, withmany reporting that capacity has been or will soon bereached and exceeded. Both types of institutions agreedthat modern electronic storage will require much lessspace, but that the equipment to use this storage (com-
puter terminals, etc.) will in turn require much of thespace saved. In general, it was evident that both presentand anticipated space needs and problems were greatestamong the large research libraries and least among thecommunity colleges. Two-year colleges in generalwould require less space for growing collections thanwould graduate institutions. Also, the two-year collegesare often fortunate to have newer library facilities whichhave not yet had time to reach capacity.
All respondents felt that the development of online com-puter cataloging was highly desirable, and there has beenmuch effort in this area. A universal concern, felt moreacutely by the research universities, was the mountingcost of books and periodicals and the need for additionalfunding just to keep the current level of operations.
A great number of factors operate to determine the pat-tern of usage of library facilities in evidence at any par-ticular institution. Among the factors identified in theresponse are the following, expressed as opposite pairson a continuous scale:
1. Commuter /residential student population
2. Undergraduate/graduate student population and pro-grams
3. Students, faculty, staff/general public
4. Open stack/closed stack access
5. "Traditional" reading/computer-assisted instruc-tion, AV, etc.
6. Research activities/general class assignments, rec-reational reading
7. Low/high intellectual climate
8. Central/decentralized; specialized/general collec-tions
9. Low/high convenience for patron use
10. Low/high level and variety of library services of-fered
3 021
All libraries attempted to provide maximum servicewithin the constraints of physical facilities and budget,with emphasis on those services most needed by theirparticular clientele. Future projections by the universitiespointed strongly toward increased use by graduate/professional programs and to priority development ofcomputerized cataloging. The two-year colleges wereconcerned greatly with expanding usage and access bythe public, esnecially by business and industry and withcommunity a h-r-ach in general.
The large university libraries tend toward decentraliza-tion, thus dividing the clientele by subject and by level,while the community college and smaller university li-braries will probably consolidate their position as centrallearning resource centers for the institution and com-munity. The two-year college libraries also will tend toallocate a higher portion of their available space to com-puter-assisted and audio-visual instruction for self-pacedlearning.
Options for Limiting Space and Attitude Toward Re-mote Storage
This is probably the area where the problems, needs,and projections show the most difference between two-year std four-year institutions. In general, the largestconcern for the four-year institutions was accommodat-ing the present and projected volume of holdings. Thisproblem is greatest with the large university researchlibraries and least with the largely undergraduate facili-ties, but all reported significant storage space problems.All institutions agreed that weeding of collections wasnecessary but could not sufficiently address the problemof space. Great expansion in electronic storage andsearch capabilities was seen as both necessary and de-sirable. Attitudes toward the construction of high densitystorage were most positive with the universities, mainlyfrom admission of their necessity, and least positive withthe community colleges because of their emphasis onuser convenience and access. High density storage wasgenerally seen as primarily a need for libraries commit-ted to a large research collection, and reasonably con-venient and efficient access and retrieval were demandedas a condition. Preference was for regional rather thanstatewide facilities.
There was general agreement on the effect of technolog-ical changes on space needs. Nearly all institutions feltthat the expected growth in electronic means of storage,retrieval, and search, while greatly reducing the need forstorage space, would at the same time increase needs forthe necessary equipment and user space. In short, tech-nological innovation was not seen as being able to solvethe space problem by itself, as gains would be offset bylosses. The general feeling was that, sooner or later,some type of high density storage capahaqy would be-come necessary, first with the large r.. ch librariesand later with all libraries.
Types of Collaboration and Networking in Existence
All of the reporting institutions, both two-year and four-year, are currently involved in one or more collaborativenetwork arrangements. Detailed tables and lists are in-cluded in both of the reports, and the networks are class-ified as to regional, statewide, interstate, and national.The four-year institutions are generally more involvedwith the national networks while the community collegesare concentrated on the regional or statewide networks.Especially notable is the great variety and number ofnetworking arrangements in existence. It is also evidentthat these networks are by now a firmly established fea-ture of all academic libraries and will no doubt continueto grow both in numbers and capabilities. All of theinstitutions, especially the smaller ones, recognize theneed and advantages of collaborative efforts and are ac-tively striving to expand in this area.
Automation of Computer-Based Library Functions
The reports contain detailed tables showing present andprojected automation for the following functions: usercatalog, serials control, circulation, fund accounting,and acquisition. It was obvious that automation of func-tions is to become standard to a great extent in all aca-demic libraries, regardless of size. The four-yearlibraries are further along in present automation, but allinstitutions project conversion in the future in varyingdegrees. Automation will obviously assume an evergreater role in the operations of libraries in the future,though physical means of handling materials will prob-ably always be used to some extent.
3 1,22
OHIO 3600 State Office TowerBOARD 30 East Broad StreetOF Columbus, Ohio 43215REGENTS Telephone: (614) 466-6000
Memorandum
To: College and University Presidents
From: William B Coulter, Chancellor
Date: November 3, 1986
Subject: Library Study Inquiry
As you know, the Board of Regents has been charged by the General Assembly with preparing astudy of the state's academic library needs. This issue arose in the context of the capital plan, butthe linkages that are inherent in the higher education budget will make it necessary for us toavoid a narrowly focused analysis. To illustrate, the legislation, Substitute House Bill No. 870,reads in part:
"Appropriation item CAP-027, Library Study Planning, shall be used by the Ohio Board ofRegents to conduct a study of the need for, and alternatives to, a significant expanb ofspace for state college and university libraries. In conducting the study, the board shallconsult with state colleges and universities. It may employ consultants as required. Apreliminary report shall be made to the Board of Regents by April 15, 1987. A final reportshall be submitted to the Governor, Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, theminority leaders of the House and Senate, the Director of Budget and Management, and theLegislative Budget Officer by December 1, 1987."
It would be inappropriate to construe either "need for" or "alternatives to" in the very limitedperspective of to build or not to build. The letter which Vice Chancellor Hairston sent toprospective Library Study Committee members expands upon this theme:
"While the purpose of the study is a direct consequence of the need to make informeddecisions on the capital budget, the scope of the committee's work will necessarily cL 7er abroad range of issues affecting the operation of academic libraries. In particular, rapid Aychanging technologies and concomitant changes in the conceptual approaches toinformaticn storage and retrieval will require careful examination."
The committee which we have charged with this task has just completed its second meeting. Theprincipal decision emerging from this discussion is that there is a need to have a much cleareridea of the library-related problems, as well as the plans for dealing with them, which are extantor perceived to be imminent in our colleges and -universities. While it seems prudent to tie our
23 32
inquiry to the capital budget process, we want both to look further ahead and to go beyond thevery limited statistical kind of inquiry normally associated with such plans. The attached inquiryis, therefore, rather open-ended. Indeed, we hope that you will choose to respond with somethingmore akin to an essay illustrated with facts or projections rather than with a series of unfiltereddata.
In any case, we trust that you will appreciate the seriousness ofpurpose that transcends theformat of the inquiry. This is an issue that effects everyone concerned with higher education in afundamental way: the choices which we make now for both libraries and informationmanagement will importantly define our options in these and related areas for a decade or more.
Our timeline is regrettably short, but the timetable with which we are working, and the legislativedeadline from which it is derived, leave us no choice. We do appreciate the receipt of yourresponse by November 28th. Thank you very much for your nelp.
EnclosuresSurvey documentsLibrary Study documents
24
33
POSSIB
Introductio
What are your overall expectations for library develop-ment in the two time periods? What major problems andsolutions do you foresee?
LE OUTLINE FOR RESPONDING TO LIBRARY STUDY INQUIRY
Overview
1. Acquisitions
A. What are e principalti ; ; 1 factors which determineti
your institution's acquisition strategy? (If youhave a written policy governing acquisitions,please append it.)
B. Do you anticipate important changes in your ac-quisition rate in the two time periods? If so, inwhich areas (e.g. government documents, peri-odicals) will the changes be most significant?
a. What effect would you expect these change(s)to have on the need for storage space? Forother space?
b. Describe the technological changes which youbelieve will be in effect in these time periods,and indicate the manner in which you wouldexpect these to affect the space needs notedabove.
2. Library Use
A. Describe the manner in which your library(ies) isnow used. Are some facilities dedicated to spe-cific usesfor example to undergraduate stu-dents, to faculty and students in a single disciplineor group of disciplines?
B. Do you anticip, 'e important changes in patron useof your library facilities in these time periods?Will different groups (e.g. faculty, undergradu-ates, graduate students) be affected in differentways? Do you expect that other constituencies(e.g. business and industry) will make greater useof your facilities? If so, how will this change thepattern of use?
a. What effect would you expect these change(s)to have on the need for storage space? Forother space?
25
b. Describe the technological changes which youbelieve will be in effect in these time periods,and indicate the manner in which you wouldexpect these to affect the space needs notedabove,
3. Management of Space
A. What options (e.g. weeding) do you consider tobe available and feasible (less than the cost of thespace saved) for limiting the space needed foryour current collection? What has been your ex-perience with these to date?
ip
B. What percentage of your collection can be de-scribed as rarely used? How do you define thislevel of use?
C. What advantages or disadvantages would youforesee as a result of the use of remote storage asa strategy for managing space? "Remote" in thiscase is defined as accessible no sooner thantwelve hours and no later than twenty-four hoursfor books, most documents and articles, and twohours or less (but at some charge) for articlesmaintained on-line (or substitute your own defi-nition).
D. Describe the technological changes which you be-lieve will be in effect in these time periods, andindicate the manner in which you would expectthese to affect the space needs noted above.
4. Networking/Resource Sharing
A. Does your library now have in place any coop-erative strategies for acquisition and/or retentionof materials? If so, how would you desoribe yourexperience to date? (It is assumed that you areactive in the use of interlibrary loan, but wewould like to know if you are employing thissystem in any way which is particularly relevantto the objectives of this study.)
B. Looking toward the two time frames encom-passed by this study, what addith,nal or alterna-tive strategies for networking/resource sharing areyou or will you likely consider? If you wouldexpect to explore a formal network or consortium,
34
which do you believe might be most feasible foryour college or university: 1) an intrastate andstatewide network; 2) an intrastate but regionalnetwork; 3) a multi-state network; 4) another ap-proach?
5. Preservation
To what extent is the preservation of existing mate-rials now a concern for your library? How is thislikely to euange in the stipulated time periods? Whateffect do you expect that the issue of preservationwill have on your space needs?
6. New Facilities
Do you project the need for new facilities in the two
time periods? (Describe those already proposed to theRegents only very briefly; provide a fuller explana-tion of plans for the others.) What strategies wouldyou implement if funds for these buildings were notforthcoming?
7. Summary
Please recall that this is only an outline of Agges-tionsif there are other issues or concerns which youwould like to address, please do so. Again, as em-phasized in the cover memorandum, the objective ofthis inquiry is to evoke your thoughts as to the bestmeans of meeting your college or university's goalsfor achieving excellence in library and informationservices.
26 3 5
INSTITUTION: / CAMPUS:'
OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS RESPONSE DUE NOVEMBER 26, 1986.LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE
BASIC DATA FORM
/ RESPONDENT.
Acquisitions and Budget information In the space provided in the grid below, please specify data regarding acquisition rates and budgetarycommitments from 1975-1985.
1975-762
1076-77
1977-78
S78-79
1979-80
196041
196142
1962-63
196344
1984-85
LIBRARY ACQUISITION AND BUDGET INFORMATIONFOR 1975-1985
Library Collection Acquisition RateCurrent Serials
"'"'on"
TotalMicroformUnits Held
Interlibrary Lnene Budget Informer I..o
Volume inUbrary (atBeginningof Year)
VolumesAdded(Gross)
VolumesWith-drawn
VolumesAdded(Net) Items Shared
ItemsBorrowed
Amount ofTotal Ubrary
Budget2
Library Budgetas Percentage
of TotalInstructional &
GeneralBudget
$ %
'This form should be completed for each college campus.2This includes total library budget, including personnel (with fringe benefits) acquisitions, and related supplies and services.3July 1 June 30.
36
UBRARY STUDY COMMITTEEBasic Data FormPogo 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Please indicate the total number of department/subject libraries at your institution (excluding branch campus libraries)
2. Please specify the total number of patrons which can be seated in your library(ies).
AUTOMATION INFORMATION
3. Which in-house library functions are currently automated (computer based)? Please specify system turn-key brand name or local:
Catalog Circulation Acquisition
Serials Control Fund Accounting Other: Specify
4. Which in-house library functions do you plan to automate in the future, and in what time frame?
Catalog Acquisition
Serials Control Fund AcoluntinG Other: Specify
COLLABORATION
5. Does your institution participate in any of the following types of collaborative activities to enhance the resources/services of your library?Please indicate name of network.
Regional Network Statewide Network Interstate Network
National Network Other: Specify
6. Do you have future plans for new collaboration affiliations which will enhance the resource/services of your library? Please describe type ofaffiliation and future time span:
MIND Maw
37
APPENDIX B
Reports:Site VisitUniversity of California,University of Illinois, andHarvard University
29 3 8
LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SITE VISIT REPORT
JANUARY 27-30, 1987
Site Visit Team Members:
Ed O'Neill, Charles Ping, Ned Sifferlen, Don Tolliver,Matt Filipic, Elaine Hairston, and Pat Skinner.
Purpose of Visit:
The major purpose of the site visit was to view anddiscuss the development, implementation, and operationof the California Northern Regional Library Facility,built in 1982 and located in Richmond, California. Teammembers visited the Rich nond facility and met with fac-ulty members, librarians, and administrators on the Uni-versity of California-Davis and Berkeley campuses. Inadditon, Elaine Hairston visited the Southern RegionalLibrary Facility located on the UCLA campus; however,since that Facility has not yet been opened, this reportwill focus on the visit to the Northern Regional StorageFacility.
Meetings Were Held With The FollowingIndividuals:
Allan Dyson, University Librarian, Santa Cruzcampus
Joseph Rosenthal, University Librarian, Berkeleycampus
Ria Kane, Associate University Librarian, Berkeleycampus
Professors Brentano (history), Slottman (history),Devogclaere (math), and Starr (English), Berkeleycampus
Marilyn Sharrow, University Librarian, Davis campus
Selected faculty and other staff, Davis campus
Gloria Stockton, Director, Northern Regional LibraryFacility
Michael Buck land, Assistant Vice President, LibraryPlans and Policies, University of California
Background Information:
The Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF) is a co-operative library storage facility, the first of its kind in
31
California. The concept of a remote high density storagelibrary facility for California was developed and rec-ommended in The University of California Libraries: APlan for Development (1977). The purpose of the Facil-ity is to store, preserve, and provide access to low-usematerials of research value in a cost effective mannerfor libraries in Northern California, inclt'ding those ofthe University of California campuses at Berkeley,Davis, San Francisco, ari Santa Cruz. Though theselibraries are now and will <ontinue to be the primarydepositors to the Facility, others will be able to partici-pate by arrangement.
With the exception of the University of California li-braries, depositing libraries are assessed on a cost re-covery ba' for services provided by the Facility, suchas processing and housing of materials, together with theassociated administrative costs.
The Facility is managed and operated by the Universityof California. It is governed by the Northern RegionalLibrary Board, which is appointed by and responsible tothe President of the University of California.
Ownership of material is retained by each depositinglibrary. In order to assure maximum and economical useof the Facility, it is expected that material deposited isintended for permanent storage.
Each depositing library is responsible for providing amachine-readable bibliographic record for all book andbooklike items deposited. Primary access to material ondeposit at the Facility is provided by lending and pho-tocopy services which individuals secure through theirown libraries. Access is ago provided by on-site serviceto individuals.
Description of the Facility:
The Northern Regional Library Facility is located at theUniversity of California, Berkeley's Richmond FieldStation in Richmond, California, 7 miles from theBerkeley Campus. The 98,000 square foot building wascompleted in October, 1982 and began operation in1983. The building has staff and reader space as well as
stack space. The stack component provides capacity forover 3,000,000 volumes, and as of June 30, 1986 therewere over 2,200,000 volumes stored in the building. Thebuilding is designed to penult construction of new stackcomponents as the need for additional space develops,with a potential capacity of 11,000,000 volumes. Staffat the Facility receive, process, and create machine-read-able records for newly-deposited materials, whichamount to more than 250,000 volumes per year, andprovide circulation services on over 50,000 items peryear.
To maximize the capacity of the Facility, materials arestored in the stacks by four size classifications in theorder in which they are received. This means that inmany instances subject area collections, and even runsof single journal titles, may not be shelved together. Asan additional space-saving measure, books are placedtwo-deep on each shelf. The materials of different de-positing libraries are often intershelved. However, non-University of California deposits are not intershelvedwith University of California deposits. A high securityarea is available for special collections.
The shelving capacity is about 58 miles (more than35,000 shelves). The building cost wus $8.7 million andthe estimated annual operating cost (facilities mainte-nance, personnel, automation and computing equipment,supplies, etc.) is $1,062,000. The operating cost esti-mate does not include transportation of requested ma-terials to campuses, however. Most of this function isperformed by an existing jitney service which carriespeople, books and mail among the nine University ofCalifornia campuses.
Based on extensive discussions with a variety of indi-viduals in California, the committee learned about theadvantages of remote high density storage as well assome possible issues to consider in planning and devel-oping such facilities. These advantages and issues areoutlined below.
Advantages of Remote High Density Storage:
I. A high density facility provides the capacity to storea much larger quantity of materials more economi-cally than would be possible with a traditional librarybuilding. Comparative costs are approximately $3 pervolume versus $20 per volume.
2. High density storage is probably the only way ulti-mately to contain the growth of xllections. Weeding,elect-, is automation, and building additions arenecessary and helpful, but cannot solve the problem.
3. A shared storage facility has the advantage of offer-ing access to major library research collections notformerly available to other libraries.
4. A high density storage facility can provide environ-mental controls for materials preservation as well asfire and theft protection systems.
5. Electronic access to the collection in storage canmake stored materials readily available to users.
Issues of Consideration Regarding Remote HighDensity Storage:
I. Requiring each library to commit a specific numberof volumes for storage can result in pressures to storeactive parts of the collection.
2. Deciding which materials are candidates for storagemust be carefully done If frequently used materials,or substantial portions of collections in a single dis-cipline, or materials with insufficient records arestored. they can deter access to information, a keylibrary responsibility.
3. Adequacy of bibliographic records must be assured,including retrospective conversion.
4. Browsing of materials is not feasible.
5. Utilization of materials on the site requires setting uptransportation systems.
6. Inaccessibility and lack of browsing opportunity mayhave a negative effect on scholarly activity by FO.1-dents and faculty.
7. Operational costs of remote facility operation need tobe reviewed carefully.
8. Cost of transportation of materials may be greaterthan expected.
9. Storage of multiple copies of some materials can re-duce efficiency and cost advantages of remote highdensity facilities.
32 4 0
LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SITE VISIT REPORT
FEBRUARY 10-11, 1987
Site Visit Team Members:
Fred Carlisle, Roger Clark, Elaine Hairston, Duane Rog-ers, Patricia Skinner, William Studer, and Don Tolliver.
Purpose of Visit:
The specific objectives of the site visit to the Universityof Illinois were: (1) to learn about the statewide auto-mated computer library network system now in operation(LCS), (2) to learn about the statewide Cooperative Col-lection Development Committee and its work, and (3)to examine the Library's compact storage facility, theSixth Stack Addition. Team members visited the facility,met with representatives of the central administrationand t e library staff, and attended a series of presenta-tions and discussions on pre.znt library operations andfuture plans.
Meetings Were Held With The FollowingIndividuals:
Steve Rugg, Associate Vice President, Planning andBudget; ig
David Stewart, Assistant Vice President, Planning andBudgeting
Bernard Sloan, Manager, LCS User Services
--Sharon Clark, Automated Systems Librarian
Ruth McBride, Circulation Library and Assistant Di-rector of General Services
Dale Montanelli, Director of Administrative Servicesof the Library
Anthony Anie llo, Associate Vice President, Admin-istrative Information Services
Barton Clark, Director, Departmental Library Ser-vices and Professor of Library Administration
Bridget Lamont, Director of the Illinois State Li'lrary
Kathleen L. Bloomberg, Associate Director of the Il-linois State Library
33
Library Computer System (LCS):
The Library Computer System, a local short-record cir-culation system originally developed at The Ohio StateUniversity, provides the State of Illinois with one of themost powerful and comprehensive resource sharing sys-tems in the nation. The Full Bibliographic Record (FBR)is the electronic online catalog component of the Illinoislibrary resource sharing system. It has now expanded toinclude 29 academic libraries holding a total of 10 mil-lion records and 85 million volumes, the largest resourcesharing pool of currently held materials yet developedin any state. This system, maintained by the Universityof Illinois Office of Administrative Information Systemsand Services (AISS), provides member libraries withboth local and interlibrary searching and circulation ca-pabilities. By July, 1987, all r:-.raicipating libraries willbe able to use the catalog to search the records of themore than 290 OCLC/ILLINET member librariesthroughout the state. This network is currently accessiblefrom over 750 terminals, with further expansionplanned. Approximately 750,000 volumes are Wane,:within the system annually, with operations controlledby computer at the medical campus of the University ofIllinois at Chicago. Dial access terminals are providedon campuses as well as at remote locations (telephoneaccess is also available for out-of-state users), and theautomated system includes self- charging. Courier ser-vice promises delivery anywhere in the state within twoto ten days, depending on the distance and connections.A key element in the development of the system hasbeen the retrospective conversion of materials to ma-chine-readable form, and participating libraries have al-ready converted records representing 9 million volumes.So far, this converion has been limited to materials dat-ing back no further than 1975, however.
There are now plans to develop an online catalog, withdifferent, but linked, software, which can provide allparticipating libraries with full bibliographic records ca-pable of being connected to a short circulation recorder.This system would operate out of the University of Il-linois medical campus and include all OCLC recordsderived from all Illinois libraries using the OCLC sys-
4 1
tern, and would have capability for both key word andsubject searches.
Advantages:
1. Resource sharing will develop interlibrary coopera-tion and avoid duplication of effort.
2. The entire state would benefit, including both aca-demic and general libraries (members of ILLINET).establishing a "superlibrary" of statewide resources.
3. Automation would provide greater efficiency in localcirculation operations by replacing manual methods.
4. The general rapid escalation of acquisition costswould be offset significantly.
5. LCS would provide the foundation (terminals, com-munication network, etc.) for the development of acomplete online catalog.
6. Impetus would be added for cooperative collectionmanagement activities by:
a. facilitating study of potential areas for cooperativeendeavors because of the machine-readable data-base
b. providing quick access to materials by all partic-ipants.
7. State government and political leaders have sitownstrong commitment for supporting the developmentand continued operation of the system.
Areas of Consideration:
1. In several respects LCS has renzhed the limit of whatit can be with current funding. Additional financialsupport would be required to support more terminalsand member libraries.
2. The basic LCS software is 16 years old; though it isnow working well, it has certain inherent difficulties:a. Because it was developed in an earlier era, it re-
quires very highly skilled programmers and muchtime for maintenance.
b. New automation developments, which users nowexpect, would be difficult to incorporate into thesystem.
3. Though the successful statewide interlibrary opera-tions are commendable and enviable, there is a con-tinued need to balance their development with thatof local circulation needs.
4. Retrospective conversion so far has been confined tomaterials dating back only to 1975 for the Urbana-Champaign campus. However, the majority of LCSlibraries have completed retrospective conversion ofall materials. Commitment of time, personnel, andfunds would be necessary to provide expansion inthis area.
Cooperative Collection Development:
A statewide Cooperative Collection Development Com-mittee was instituted in 1984, funded by HECA seedmoney granted for activities in this area. The Committeeso far has compiled information on the quantity of alllibrary collections in the LCS system and is now devel-oping a quality indicator evaluation mechanism based onone previously developed by the Research LibrariesGroup.
Current plans center around a series of consecutive andinterrelated projects that were developed by testing var-ious pilot projects. Successful projects are then incor-porated into a master plan of phased activities leadingto a voluntary cooperative collection management plaflfor academic libraries in the state. The stated objectivesare:
1. to continue testing and development of pilot projects
2. to complete and expand the LCS collection analysisquantity matrix to include libraries with machine-readable databases other than LCS
3. to develop and implement a series of subject-orientedacquisition projects based on needs determined afterevaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of exist-ing collections
In its first year of operation, the Conuninee developeda collection analysis matrix of LCS holdings indicatingthe number of titles held in each participating library,broken down by the 489 subjects used in the NationalUnion Shelflist, and conducted training of subject spe-cialists in methods of applying standard quality indica-tors. Continued efforts have resulted in expansion of theanalysis matrix, further subject specialist training, and
34 42
the development of mechanisms for evaluation and ac-quisitors.
Advamtage s:
1. This effort represents an innovative approach to max-imizing funds for special acquisitions while devel-oping high quality collections for statewide use.
Areas of Consideration:
1. The relatively great amount of time necessary toachieve the stated objectives could at some time inthe future raise a question of commitment to contin-ued funding.
Compact Storage Facility:
The University of Illinois's compact library storage fa-cility, the Sixth Stack Addition, was added to the maincampus library at Urbana/Champaign in 1983. The orig-inal library building was built with provision for addi-tional stack facilities, and five additions have previouslybeen constructed. As the existing capacity had been es-sentially exhausted, and with acquisitions running ap-proximately 200,000 volumes per year the need foradditional stack space was obvious. After consideringthe various options available for meeting this need, theUniversity decided to build a compact storage addition.The facility, a nine-tier stack featuring a mobile shelvingsystem and complete environmental control (includingboth air and light filtering systems), was built at a totalcost of almost $7 million for building and equipment. Itcontains almost 55 miles of shelving, housing over 2million volumes. Unlike a completely "compact" stor-age facility, the Sixth Stack Addition houses books inclassification number order, requiring vacant space onshelves for future acquisitions. Though this mitigates themaximum possible density somewhat, the holdings stilloccupy only 8,529 square feet of site area and the costper volume is $3.36, compared to $4.89 for a stackaddition with fixed shelving. Capacity is about twice thatof a conventional facility.
Since the facility is situated adjacent to the Universitylibrary, it was decided that some density should be sac-
rificed to provide a limited degree of "browsability."Selected undergraduates, graduate students, and facultyhave browsing privileges, though there are no carrels orwork areas in the facility itself. Undergraduate studentsdo have full electronic access, however, through onlinecomputer search using the LCS and the newer onlinecatalog (FBR), which includes both key word and sub-ject search capabilities.
Advantages:
1. The facility is the p.. duct of a carefully conductedsystems management approach, and is custom-de-signed for compact, mobile storage featuring a highdegree of accessibility and convenience.
2. The location (on the campus and as part of the librarybuilding) encourages access by both faculty and sni-dents (either physically or electronically).
3. The high-density storage is cost effective, requiringno additional personnel and limiting additional coststo maintenance and overhead.
4. There are no delays in movement of materials sincethe building is an integral part of the library.
5. Mobile shelving, while expensive, gives greater flex-ibility and complete user access while still maintain-ing a high degree of density.
6. The type of construction for the building providesmaximum fire protection. Eavironntental controls en-sure preservation of materials to the greatest degreepossible.
Areas of Consideration:
1. Electronic driven shelving can be immobilized bybreaks in electric sc.-vice, thereby preventing accessto the holdings.
2. Only one aisle is accessible at any one time. Thisdoes not pose great problems in a "closed stack"library, but might in an "open stack" situation.
35 ' 43
LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE
HARVARD DEPOSITORY, INC. SITE VISIT REPORT
FEBRUARY 11, 1987
Site Visit Team Members:
Helmut Alpers, Ken Baker, Elaine Hairston, GeorgiaLesh-Laurie, Dale McGirr, Pat Skinner, and Bill Studer.
Purpose of Visit:
The major purpose of the site visit was to view anddiscuss the development of the Harvard Depository,Inc., a new off-site library storage facility completed inJune, 1986. Site visit team members also had an oppor-tunity to see the compact storage shelving in the WidenerLibrary, which is the same type of automated shelvingutilized by the University of Illinois.
Meetings Were Held With The FollowingIndividuals:
Richard Fryberger, Assistant Director of Planning, Har-vard University
Barbara Graham, Assistant Director of University Li-braries for Financial Planning and Special Projects, Har-vard University
Sandra Coleman, Deputy Director, Harvard Law Library
Carol Arvin, Facility Manager, Harvard Depository, Inc.
Background Information:
The Harvard University library system comprises ap-proximately 90 autonomous libraries (e.g., Law Library,Education Library, etc.) which contain a total of 11 mil-lion volumes. In 1983, formal recognition was given tothe growing space demands for library materials, withthe development of plans for a new type of storage fa-cility which would be particularly suitable in an aca-demic environment with a decentralized library system.The University central administration made an initial in-vestment to build a warehouse type storage facility, tobe utilized on a voluntary, leased-space basis. This fa-cility, the Harvard Depository, Inc., (HDI), was openedin June, 1986. To date, materials stored include thosefrom University Archives and the Schools of Businessand Law.
36
Description of the Facility:
The Harvard Depository, Inc., is an off-site high densitystorage facility which combines filing, retrieval and de-livery services to allow economical storage of low-ac-tivity library books, boxed materials, and administrativeor aLademic records. This facility is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Harvard University, managed by IronMountain Group, Inc., a professional records manage-ment firm.
The Harvard Depository, Inc. is located on a six-acresite in Southborough, Macc2rhusetts, and will be con-structed in phases as depositor needs increase. The firstphase (the building the team visited) includes 165,000linear shelf feet. Future expansion plans include spacefor 10 additional phases.
Phase I consists of 3,500 square feet of office and ad-ministrative area and 8,500 square feet of storage space.Space has also been allocated for a reading room forscholars. Two additional general purpose rooms can beused for meeting space or areas where special collection-management projects can be conducted. The storagebuilding is approximately three stories high inside andcontains metal shelving configured from floor to ^tiling.The shelving is accessed through mobile mechanical lifts(i.e., industrial-type "cherry picker").
The Harvard Depository, Inc. is designed with threetypes of protection for materials: (1) physical protectionfrom damage by fire and water or loss by theft or ne-glect, (2) environmental protection from deterioration byexposure to light or to an uncontrolled climate, and (3)protection from inventory loss through misplaced or mis-managed materials.
Depositors of materials are charged separately for stor-age, retrieval, and delivery. The types of materials rec-ommended for storage in this facility include librarybooks and archival and museum collections where theusage pattern is low.
Further details regarding the facility are included in At-tachment A, appended to this report.
44
Depositor Perspective
In order for the team to understand how the HarvardDepository, Inc. is viewed and utilized by representa-tives of the Harvard University Library system, a dis-cussion was held with the Deputy Director of theHarvard Law Library. The Law School Library was oneof the first individual libraries at Harvard to store ma-terials at HD!. It has 7,600 volumes (1,090 book feet)stored at the facility to date, out of a current librarycollection of 1.5 million volumes.
Decisions regarding which materials to store were madeearlier, as 60% of the materials sent to the Depositoryhad already been in storage in a dormitory basement.Thus, 60% of the stared materials were not browsableby the faculty before being moved to the Depository.Since September, 1986 there have been five requests formaterials to be returned to the campus library. It wasgenerally felt that materials would be more accessiblefrom the Harvard Depostory, Inc. than they were pre-viously. In addition, materials had been stored in verypoor climatic conditions with little or no formal records.
Advantages
1. The cost of building this facility is very inexpensive(approximately $1 per volume of books stored), sig-nificantly less than either the California Northern Re-gional Library Facility or the Illinois Sixth StackAddition.
2. There is a "buying into" the facility with the use ofa cost center concepteach library wanting to usethe storage facility must agree to pay for the spacefrom its own budget. There is also a processingcharge for having books returned to the central cam-pus library.
37
3. Since Harvard Depository is managed by an externalrecords management firm, all libraries storing mate-rials are treated "equally" as customers. To date,space is being provided for Harvard University ma-terials; however, plans are being made to store ma-terials from the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology in the near future.
4. Operation of the facility appears to be very low cost,with only 3-4 staff required for 2 million books.
5. Retrieval of needed materials appears to be efficientand effective.
6. The key to efficient storage appears to be the strategyof filing books by size, adjusting shelves, and storinga multiplicity of items, including archives, art works,records, and books.
Areas of Consideration:
1. Physical browsing is not possible.
2. The idea of remote high density storage may not beacceptable to all faculty and/or staff.
3. Preparing books in poor condition for storage can bea problem.
4. If expanded access of stored materials is desired,pla^s must be made for their circulation beyond thereturn of materials only to the library which initiallyhoused them.
5. Careful planning and attention must be given to thedesign of the facility in order to maximize the poten-tial high efficiency/low cost benefits.
45
Attachment A
HARVARD DEPOSITORY
Concept
This single satellite depository, located 30 minutes fromthe main campus and featuring next day delivery, per-mits campus libraries to store their lesser used collec-tions to relieve immediate and future space problems.The Depository is a new library building type, havingsome characteristics of a warehouse, but featuring thecareful integration of a highly specialized building sys-tem, shelving system, computer systems, and operatingplan for library materials. This concept constitutes abreak-through both in terms of cost and of quality incomparison to existing libraries conceived for the samepurposes.
Cost and Capacity
The Harvard Depository Phase I will accommodate1,700,000 books for a project cost of $1.8 million, orapproximately $1/volume, with a total of $2.2 millionwhen financing, land and other costs are included. Thisis 1/10th the cost of a Pusey Extension, 1/6th the costof Yale's Seeley G. Mudd Storage Annex, and 1/3rd thecost of the California Northern Regional Facility.
Book Conservation
The Harvard Depository provides an excellent conser-vation environment, with carefully controlled limits oftemperature ( ± 3°) and humidity ( ± 3%) at very lowcosts. Temperature and humidity will be changed in agradual manner as the seasons change.
Harvard Depository Description
1. In its first library application, the depository employsspecially adapted high-bay shelving (6' wide, 30'
38
high, and 175' long) within a most cost effective andspecially adapted single story building in conjunctionwith a support building providing work and userspaces. Rather than having multiple levels of lightingand mechanical air distribution ducts, elevators, firestairs, and other building elements, the Depositoryfeatures an unobstructed stack configuration in a sin-gle, simple space.
2. A book container system was invented in five mod-ular sizes to allow much greater density, becausebooks are shelved not only by height but by width.Prevously, deposit libraries have only been able toincrease density by shelving books of the same heighttogether.
3. Importantly, these book trays enable 36-inch-deepshelves to be used rather than conventional 9-inchones. Book trays are pulled out at right angles to theaxis of the shelving and -... shelved double deep, onebehind another. A computerized inventory controlsystem has been incorporated, using barcode labelsfor all items, programming the workload sequenceand virtually eliminating lost books. The barcodescan be read rapidly by a laser gun scanning the booktray.
4. To provide shelving access, a commercial, manually-operated order-picker is used, providing completevertical and horizontal mobility for a work station (8'long X 40" wide). With this mobile work station, thebook-tray shelving approach is easily workable, al-lowing books to be accessed quickly with minimumeffort and no abuse.
46
APPENDIX C
The BookDeterioration Crisis
39
THE BOOK DETERIORATION CRISIS
Introduction
One of the written goals and objectives of the Ohio Con-servation Committee (OCC) is "to pursue developmentand funding for an Ohio mass deacidification facility thatwould primarily serve not-for-profit Ohio institutions."For almost two years the OCC Subcommittee on MassDeacidification, under a charge by the OCC Chairman,has been studying the options and opportunities availableto Ohio libraries for establishing a mass deacidificationfacility in Ohio.
The recent appointment by the Ohio Board of Regentsof a Library Study Committee to investigate the need forand alternatives to a significant expansion of space forstate college and university libraries presents an oppor-tunity for OCC to urge that its preservation and conser-vation concerns be considered by the Library StudyCommittee. It is understood that this Committee's workwill also include, beyond space needs, issues involvingchanging technologies and approaches to informationstorage and retrieval.
The Mass Deacidification Sub-Committee of OCC be-lieves that mass deacid,fication is important to preservethe written cultural and intellectual heritage contained inOhio's libraries. Steps must be taken to ensure the lon-gevity of paper materials which are highly acidic andwill eventually, through embrittlement, be rendered use-less if not treated. It is the Sub-Committee's belief thatmass deacidification needs wide support to make thispreservation process part of the State's commitment tothe collectio, storage, and preservation of its libraryresources.
Nature and Extent of the Problem
The large-scale deterioration of book collections in theUnited States is a quiet crisis that threatens to destroy asubstantial portion of the nation's printed cultural andintellectual heritage. It is a crisis that is rapidly receivingits due recognition as one of the critical issues facingresearch libraries today.
The alarming results of book condition surveys con-ducted at major research libraries, such as those at YaleUniversity and the Library of Congress, have beenwidely reported and their implication acknowledged byuniversity administrators, librarians, and archivists
41
across the country. These studies revealed that substan-tial portionsfrom one-fourth to over one-third--of thecollections surveyed are so severely deteriorated thatthey are already brittle and are rendered too fragile tobe used. Larger portions of materials in existing collec-tions are examples of acidic paper and are on their wayto becoming embrittled, if they are not treated to arrestthat decay process.
Paper acidity is the most important predictor of its Ion-ge,ity. It has been well-documented that the causes of"acid attack" are internal to the paper itself. Aroundthe middle of the nineteenth century a change in paper-making technology resulted in the Ise of wood pulp inplace of rag content and the increased use of cher'icaladditives. In the past 125 years, alum rosin sizing hasbeen routinely added to wood pulps in the papermakingprocess to enhance the printability of the finished paper.It is this sizing itself that leaves the destructive acidicresidue.
Due to this combination of factors producing acidity,most of the books and documents produced betweenroughly 1870 and 1930 have now deteriorated to an em-brittled state. A large portion of more recent imprintsas high as 90 per cent, as estimated by recent surveysincluding most materials that are currently being usedby libraries, are definitely acidic, although they have notyet become embrittled. However, if these newer, post-1930 materials are not treated to neutralize the residualacids, their self-destruction will continue toward irre-versible embrittlement in the latter years of this centuryand the early years of the next century.
Solutions to the Problem
Stated most simply, the paper-based books and docu-ments of the past 125 years must be reformatted to astable medium (e.g., microfilm), or their acidic chem-istry must be neutralized (i.e., "deacidified") if the con-tents al: to be preserved.
A limited range of solutions exists for approaching theproblem. Essentially, materials can be replaced, repro-uuced or treated to arrest further decay. Those whichhave deteriorated beyond use can be replaced, if reprintsare available, but at a cost usually in excess of the orig-!nal volumes. This option applies to only a small portion
48
of endangered materials, for the marketplace seldomen-courages publishers to invest in the reprint business.
Embrittled texts are routinely reproduced by libraries ormicrofilm publishers through microfilming, therety pre-serving their intellectual content and forfeiting i usdally)the physical book format. Significant numbers of im-portant texts from the era of bad paper have been andare being preserved on film by major research librarycooperative efforts. Microfilming is currently consideredthe most appropriate, cost-effective method for the pres-ervation of embrittled texts. Nevertheless, the cost ofmicrofilming is considerable, at around $40 to $60 per300-page volume.
ivlaterials not yet embrittled can have their acidity neu-tralized using a single-item manual process (using diptank or spray deacidification methods), or deacidifica-tion can take place en masse. The former is a costly,labor-intensive procedure and as such is generally re-served for small numbers of rare and special items. It ismass deacidification only, a process of bulk neutraliza-tion, that holds for libraries the promise of an affordablemethod for the large-scale preservation of books in theiroriginal formats.
THE CRISIS IN OHIO
Ohio's library, archival and historical society collectionshold the documentary heritage of the state and providemany well-known collections of national significance.The holdings of Ohio public and academic libraries areover 57,303,324 volumes and are growing at the rate of3,543,057 volumes per year.' The holdings of Ohio'scollege and university libraries alone number over25,000,000 volumes.
To determine the extent of book deterioration among twoof these collections, random sampling was done recently:n the libraries of Ohio State University and Kent StateUniversity. These studies revealed, through remarkablysimilar results, that around 22% of the collections sam-pled are embrittled and 87% or more are moderately toseverly acidic. If the brittle books (22%) are subtractedfrom the total that are acidic (87%), it can be roughlyestimated that at least 65% of these collections are acidicbut not yet brittle.
'State Library of Ohio, Statistics of Ohio Libraries, 1986. (Colum-bus, Ohio, 1986).
If these percentages are applied to the total holdings ofOhio academic libraries, we can estimate that in the li-braries 16,000,000 volumes, though currently usable,are endangered because of their acidic paper. At the pro-jected mass deacidification cost of approximately fourdollars per volume, the cost to the state of preserving itsprinted heritage, barring inflation, could exceed sixty-five million dollars.
As expected, Ohio's libraries have a lower number ofbrittle books than Yale University and the Library ofCongress, due to the younger age of Ohio's collections.However, the high percentage of materials that are acidicbut not yet brittle, and as such are potential candidatesfor deacidification treatment, make Ohio an ideal loca-tion for a deacidification facility.
While it may not be necessary for any Ohio library totreat all of its acidic materials, neither can these librariesafford to allow their valuable collections to deteriorate.The urgency of the deterioration crisis and the potentialof mass deacidification treatment for those materials notyet embrittled create an opportunity for cooperative pres-ervation planning among Ohio's libraries.
The Promise of Mass Deacidification
Mass deacidification, a vapor-phase proces3 by whichbooks and documents can be acid-neutra'azed in bulkunder pressure, offers the most promisin; and inexpen-sive approach for the preservation treatment of large col-lections of non-brittle materials. At this writing thechoice of mass deacidification processes is limited. Thedietheyl zinc method (DEZ) developed by the Libraryof Congress is being tested and will be operational in1988. (The DEZ test facility, constructed by the Libraryof Congress with assistance from NASA, has experi-enced some technical setbacks, which are being re-solved.) Another process in the U.S. has been developedby the Koppers Corporation, which to our knowledgehas net been tested. Also, England and France both havemass deacidification processes in the planning stages.
The only mass deacidification facility now in successfuloperation is the prototype Wei T'o facility at the PublicArchives of Canada in Ottawa. This facility has beenoperating since 1980, treating only materials from theArchives' own collections.
The Wei T'o system uses an organic magnesium car-bonate for its deacidification agent, dissolved in a fluo-
42 4 9
rocarbon and alcohol carrier. The deacidification agentand solvents are forced into the books under pressure.At the. end of a fifty-minute cycle, solvents are removedfrom the books by vacuum drying. In Canada, the sys-tem meets safety standards equivalent to OSHA stand-ards in the United States. This process can extend thelife of a book as much as 300 to 500 years, dependingupon the book's subsequent usage and storage condi-tions.
While Wei T'o mass deacidification facilities are underconsideration in several states, no state is yet construct-ing such a facility. Thus, it is reasonable to assume thatthese facilities will not be widely distribute or easilyaccessible to most libraries for many years to come.
The Relationship of Mass Deacidification andCollection Management:Opportunities for Collaborative Efforts
The link between preservation and collection develop-ment and management is becoming increasingly appar-ent as the library profession examines the issues of thedeterioration of vast portions of its collections. AuthorDan C. Hazen has pointed out that there is an analogousstructure between the decisions inherent in collection de-velopment and preservation. In collection developmentlibrarians decide which materials are important to ac-quire, while in preservation, they decide which materialsleast deserve destruction.'
Although mass deacidification technology may makemoderately-priced treatment for acidic materials avail-able to research libraries in the near future, the sheervolume of need will make the cost of wholesale treat-ment of collections prohibitive. Not only do materialscurrently held by Ohio's libraries need treatment but,well into the foreseeable future, new acquisitions willarrive on acidic paper and require treatment. The enor-mity of the preservation challenge demands that actionbe taken, but the potential costs of any action likewisedemand that it be well-planned, using cooperative ap-proaches.
Several recent reports and studies have emphasized theimportance in collaborative efforts among libraries for-mulating preservation strategies. The Interim Report of
2Dan C. Hazen, "Collection Development, Collection Mangementand Preservation," Library Resources and Technical Services 27 (Jan.
uary, 1982): 6.
the Council on Library Resources' Committee on Pres-ervation and Access stated that "institutions will benefiteconomically when they collaborate with others; eachwill serve its own ends at a reduced cost."'
Another report on a survey conducted among membersof the Research Libraries Group found that respondentswere more willing to cooperate in preservation selectionthan in acquisitions selection. One conclusion of thisreport was that, for the purpose of preservation, accessis more important than ownership.'
A mass deacidification facility, as it relates to storageneeds for Ohio libraries, would result in the developmentof selection guidelines for use of the facility. Guidelineswould be set and valuable experience gained in the mov-ing and bibliographic control of large quantities of var-ious types of materials owned by different institutions.It would encourage cooperation among participating li-braries for treating specific portions of their collectionswithout needless overlap or duplication in certain areas.
The Suitability of Ohio as a Location for a Cooper-ative Mass Deacidification Facility
Ohio would seem to be an ideal state for location of amass deacidification facility and for leading the nationin developing a model for such cooperative treatment.This statement is based upon the following factors:
I. There is a high density of public, academic, institu-tional and special libraries in the State; some 589such institutions with total holdings of over 58 mil-lion volumes.
2. The degree of statewide cooperation around preser-vation issues that has already been achieved is im-pressive and possibly unique.
3. The participr. . lib-aries are actively engaged in de-veloping c.her tools, apart from mass deacidification,to cope with their collective preservation problems.For example, the OCC Task Force on PreservationMicrofilming is working both to increase the level of
'Council on Library Resources, Committee on Preservation andAccess, Interim Report (Washington, DC: Council on Library Re-sources, 1985): 4.
' "Selection for Preservation: An RLG Survey," National Preservation News (October, 1985): 4.
43 5 0
in-house filming and to create mechanisms for link-ing local programs into a coherent statewide effort.
4. Through the work of the OCC's Information Office(OCCIO) in Columbus, Ohio can point to a growingbase of professional competence in the preservationfield, widely distributed among public, academic andspecial libraries.
In short, there exists in Ohio a context of complementarypreservation activities within which mass deacidificationcan assume its proper role. All of the above factors willcontribute to effective utilization of a mass deacidifica-tion facility in Ohio.
Ohio Conservation Committee Recommendations
The OCC Sub-Committee on Mass Deacidification stud-ied all available literature on known processes in orderto arrive at a recommendation for a facility in Ohio.Members visited the one working facility available forinspection and reviewed all possibilities with experts be-fore reaching a decision. The facility chosen had to meetthe following criteria:
1. it had to meet safe working conditions at least asstringent as those set by OSHA;
2. it had to be of suitable size for the region with thepossibility for future expansion;
3. it had to be capable of incorporation within an exist-ing or soon-to-be built structure;
4. its capital and production costs had to be withinreach;
5. there had to be a similar prototype in operation thatcould be evaluated.
Based on these criteria, the Sub-Committee on MassDeacidification finds the Wei T'o system to be the onlyone suitable for Ohio's libraries. Sub-Committee mem-bers visited the Canadian Wei T'o facility and observedit in operation. They were impressed with the relativesimplicity of the process, its high safety standards andits relatively low per book cost of deacidification.
44
A facility on the scale of the one at the public Archivesof Canada is capable of deacidifying 5,000 books perweek, or 260,000 volumes per year, if operated twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. In Ohio a largerfacility could be installed to increase output. The Com-mittee recommends a 6,000-square-foot facility to ac-commodate a larger Wei T'o system. We have estimatesthat the construction of a facility of that size would costfrom $600,000 to $800,000. The external manufacturingequipment, installation, development and updating ex-penses have cost the Public Archives of Canada$500,000 through 1984. The treatment cost at the Ca-nadian facility is currently estimated at $3.47 (U.S.) perbook.
While the Sub-Committee on Mass Deacidification canendorse Wei T'o, it does recommend the continuingstudy of mass deacidification processes as well as in-depth study of the deacidification and its potential forpreventing the deterioration of printed materials in Ohiolibraries.
The Sub-Committee believes that mass deacidificationneeds to be a serious concern of the Library Study Com-mittee. The future of Ohio's library resources remain atrisk.
Ohio Conservation CommitteeSub-Committee on Mass Deacidification
Members:Susan B. Barnard, Kent State UniversityWesley L. Boomgaarden, Ohio State UniversityToby Heidtmann, University of CincinnatiDina Shoonmaker, Oberlin CollegeVernon Will, Ohio Historical SocietyEdward Seely, Cleveland Public Library, Chairman
Ex Officio Members:Gary A. Hunt, Ohio UniversityRebecca H. Winkle, Director, Ohio Cooperative
Conservation Information Office
October, 1986
51
APPENDIX D
Technology Review
45
52
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Technology is often viewed as a solution to the problemsof storing, retrieving, and accessing information. Sincethe invention of the printing press, libraries have bene-fitted from technology. However, it has only been in thelast twenty-five years that technology has had a majorimpact on library operation. These past twenty-five yearshave seen the widespread acceptance of computer andcommunications technologies. Even greater changeshave been predicted for the next few decades with theemergence of the "information age," the "electronicera," "global village" or the "paperless society."
The following is a brief description of the major tech-nologies or technological issues that are affecting, orbeginning to affect in a significant way, the operationsof libraries.
Storage Technologies
Microformat. The use of microfilm, microfiche, andother similar microformats can dramatically reduce li-brary space requirements. Microformat technology,which dates from the 1930's, is stable and well under-stood. All major academic libraries have substantialquantities of microfilm or microfiche materials in theircollections, and this medium is familiar to most aca-demic library users. Microformats are a proved archivalmedium.
Microformats can be used in three primary ways: (1) asan alternative to binding for current journals, (2) as areplacement for older volumes of bound journals, and(3) for the filming of materials currently in the stacks.A good economic argument can be made for using com-mercially available copies of microformats as a substi-tute for binding since the price of such copies is lessthan the cost of binding. However, using microformatsin this way only slows the rate of total collection growth.No existing space is freed.
The other two applications of microformats must beweighed carefully because of cost. It is difficult toachieve significant savins by replacing bound volumesin compact storage with microformats, often costing$50.00 or more per volume. Therefore this approachusually can be justified only as a means of preservingdeteriorating materials.
47
Optical Disk. Within the last few years there have beenimpressive gains in optical storage technologies. Threedistinct types of optical storage exist, read only (CDROM), write once (WORM), and erasable.
The CD ROM uses the same technology that was de-veloped for the compact audio disc. Except for the con-tent, the discs are ,2,entical to the audio version. The CDROM can store 550 million bytes, enough to store thecontents of several hundred books. While the masteringcost is high, usually over '.10,000, the discs can be rep-licated for about $10. When the mastering cost can bespread over a large production run, the CD ROM offersan extremely economical means of storing and distrib-uting information. CD ROM drives are available for mi-crocomputers in the $500 to $1,000 price range, andprice decreases are expected.
Because of the high mastering cost, the CD ROM is nota practical storage medium for information when only afew copies are required. For that type of information,the WORM (Write One, Read Mostly) non-erasable op-tical disks are better suited. These devices can be usedwith most sizes of computers, including microcompu-ters. While the per disk cost is mcm expensive than theCD ROMs, they are still an inexpensive storage me-dium. Capacities of WORM disks range up to 2 billioncharacters, sufficient to store approximately 2,000books. The acceptance of the WORM disks may increasewith IBM's announcement that they are a standard pe-ripheral for their new System 2 microcomputers. Jukebox drives are available for WORM disks, permitting upto 200 billion characters to be available on-line. A singlesuch unit has a storage capacity equal to many small ormedium size libraries. Although WORM disks are beingused for long term data storage, they are not yet a provedarchival medimil.
Erasable Optical disks are the newest form of opticalstorage for computers. This format is not yet generallyavailable, although several companies have successfullydemonstrated prototype systems. The initial versions ofthe erasable disks are not expected to offer significantadvantages for long term information storage over theWORM disks since they are expected to be more ex-pensive and have inferior archival characteristics.
Magnetic Storage. Magnetic storage is still the most
53
common means of storing machine-readable informa-tion. Magnetic tapes continue to be an inexpensivemeans of archiving information, and magnetic disks area directly accessible medium with very high capacities.While magnetic storage is an old technology, major ad-vances continue to be made in increasing storage densityand capacity while reducing storage costs and accesstime. Magnetic disks have considerably faster accesstimes than optical disks and, therefore, are more suitablefor use with large mainframes. Most databases still usemagnetic disks as their primary medium.
Retrieval Technologies
Melillo logy has had its greatest impact in the area ofinformation retrieval. Large centralized computer data-bases and the newest CD ROM-based products are grad-ually replacing the use of conventional card catalogs andprint indexes. There is a wide variety of retrieval prod-ucts and services currently available. A brief discussionof some of the more significant products and servicesfollows.
Circulation Systems. All libraries which permit usersto remove materials require some type of circulation sys-tem. For the past twenty years, the trend has been in-creasing to use computers to keep track of the materialswhich the library has loaned to patrons. Many of Ohio'sacademic libraries currently have computerized circula-tion systems, and the remaining manual systems are ex-pected to be replaced in the near future.
OPACs. Online public access catalogs are gradually re-placing the card catalogs in academic libraries. OPACshave proven to be more flexible, easier to use, and lesscostly to maintain than card catalogs. Unlike the cardcatalog, they also can be accessed from remote loca-tions, thus making the collections available to a far largergroup of potential users. A significant trend is to mergethe circulation system and online catalog into a singleintegrated system.
Information Retrieval Systems. There are several on-line retrieval systems, including Bibliographic RetrievalSystem (BRS), Lockheed, Dialog, and Mead Data whichprovide centralized information databases. Use of online
48
service is beginning to replace the use of the printedindexes. Although they cover a variety of different typesof literature, their primary focus is journals. The servicesgenerally provide citations and often abstracts for therequested materials. The most significant trend is to ex-tend the services to provide full text, thereby providingthe user immediate access to a document.
Bibliographic Utilities. Bibliographic utilities startedprimarily as a means of providing libraries with catalog-ing records. There are four bibliographic utilities activein the United States: OCLC, Western Library Network(WLN), Research Library Group (RLG), and UTLAS.The Columbus-based OCLC, the largest of the four,serves over 7,000 libraries in North America and Eu-rope. All state-assisted universities in Ohio have beenOCLC members since the early seventies. In addition toproviding cataloging records, OCLC also provides manyother services to Ohio libraries. Holding information isrecorded so that OCLC can provide information regard-ing the locations of over 270 million volumes repre-sented in its database. As a result, OCLC can be usedto identify the libraries in Ohio which hold a given title.
Access
For materials to be used, either the user must go to thefacility where the materials are stored or fir: materialsmust be moved to the user. It is increasingly commonto move the materials rather than the users. To speed theprocess, interlibrary loan requests are usually sent elec-tronically.
Facsimile. This technology permits copies of materialto be delivered electronically over telephone lines, mak-ing access almost instantaneous. Functionally, facsimileworks much like conventional copiers except that thescanning and printing portions of the equipment are con-nected via a telecommunication line. While facsimilecopying is not new, it has been affected by digital andmicroprocessor technology. For libraries, facsimile tech-nology makes it possible to deliver quickly small quan-tities of information, such as articles, anywhere in thworld. Older systems had compatibility problems,as manufacturers accept the new standards, these prob-lems are being reduced.
54
1
APPENDIX E
Comparable InformationRegarding Library Facilities
49
55
COMPARABLE INFORMATION REGARDING LIBRARY FACILITIES
State/Facility:
California - University of California Northern RegionalLibnuy Facility
Type of Facility:
Compact, High-Density Library Storage Facility
Description of Facility:
The Northern Regional Library Facility is a cooperativehigh-density, low-use library storage facility. Ir was de-veloped to tore, preserve, and provide access to lowuse library materials for the libraries of the Universityof California and other northern California libraries. The98,000 square feet building's first phase was completedin 1982. The current Facility has a capacity of 3.08 mil-lion volume with expansion space for 13 million.
Capital Building Costs:
$8.5 million includes $1.9 million for shelving.
$305,000 for furn:shings and equipment.
$1,089,000 for the HVAC system.
CAPITAL COST PER VOLUME:
$2.76 per volume.
OPERATING COSTS:
Estimated at $1.06 million per year (in 1986/87 dollars).The annual cost of storing each item is an estimated 7cents per volume. The cost to provide access to an item(retrieve, circulate, reshelve) is an estimated $4.60 peritem (does not include the cost of delivery and returntransport).
Cost Comparison For Traditional Library Buildingin California:
No information available.
Information Source:
Ms. Gloria J. StocktonDirector(415) 232-7767
51
State/Facility:
Illinois/Sixth Stack Addition
Type of Facility:
Compact Storage Facility
Description of Facility:
The Sixth Stack Addition at the University of Illinois isa compact storage facility with automatic movable shelv-ing which houses 55 miles of shelving (approximately2,030,000 volumes) on seven levels. There are sevenvolume:: per linear foot stored, with a storage capacityof 238 volumes per sq. ft. of site area and 28.4 volumesper sq. ft. of floor area, as compared to 146 volumesand 12.1 volumes respectively for the existing stack fa-cility.
Captital Building Costs:
$3.5 million for building the facility; $3.3 million forequipment; total capital costs = $6.8 million.
Capital Cost Per Volume:
$3.36 per volume.
Operating Costs:
Because this facility is an addition to the University ofIllinois main library building, separate operating costfigures are not available. However, it should be notedhat 1/2 FTE staff was hired to maintain the movablestacks. There were no additional personnel hired to pro-vide library-related services in the Sixth Stack Addition,but existing personnel were reassigned to perform thatfunction. It should be noted that all stacks are "closed"to persons other than faculty, graduate students, and staffat the University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign cam-pus.
Since this facility is attached to the central campus li-brary, there are no special transportation costs as theremight be in a remote storage facility.
Operating Costs Per Volum!:
No information available.
56
Costs Comparison For Traditional Library Buildingin Mimic
$3.36 per volume, compared to $4.89 per volume in atraditional library.
Information Source:
Mr. J. David StewartAssistant Vice President
for Planning and Budgeting(217) 333-6600
State/Facility:
Massachusetts/Harvard Depository, Inc.
Type of Facirdy:
Remote Storage Library Facility
Description of Facility:
The Harvard Depository, Inc. is a warehouse-type stor-age facility which was opened in June, 1986, and willaccommodate approximately 1.7 million volumes whenfilled to capacity. This is equivalent to 170,000 linearfeet of books.
Capital Building Costs:
$1.8 million, excluding the cost of financing and land.
$2.2 million, including the cost of financing and land.
Capital Cost Per Volume:
$1.00 per volume, excluding the cost of fmancing andland.
$1.30 per volume, including the cost of financing andland.
52
Operating Costs:
1. Cost of Housing/Materials1Voltunes:
$.99 per linear foot (assumes full occupancy) =$168,300.
Includes cost of three persons neeaed to run facility(will be reduced to two persons when facility is filledto capacity).
2. Transportation cost:
Retrieval cost would be $.30 per linear book foot(includes cost of courier), assuming an annual cir-culation of 21/2%.
Operating Cost Per Volume:
$.99 per volume (excluding transportation costs).
Cost Comparison For Traditional Library Buildingin That State:
$4.00 per volume (approximately).
Assumptions:
1. Cost projections for operation are based upon a totalcapacity of 1.7 million volumes.
2. Start-up costs are included in the $2.2 million.
Other:
1. A rental fee is charged to libraries for rental of spaceat a rate of $2.40 per linear book foot.
Information Source:
Dr. Richard FrybergerSenior Project Planner(617) 495-1000
57
APPENDIX F
A Proposal for Retrospective ConversionofBibliographic Records
53
58
r
A PROPOSAL FOR RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION OFBIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS
Summary
In 1979-80, the libraries of Ohio's twelve state-assisteduniversities, members of the Inter-University LibraryCouncil (IULC), developed a proposal for "retrospectiveconversion of bibliographic records" (conversion of cat-aloging information from card form to computer-read-able form) as a high priority for action to encourage moresharing of library resources throughout Ohio. This proj-ect was intended to computerize, on OCLC, informa-tion about the many books and serial publications(periodicals, yearbooks, etc.) held in the IULCV librar-ies but cataloged before the availability of OCLC, in1971. The proposal was endorsed by the presidents ofthe universities at their meeting of September i980, anda recommendation for line-item funding was included inthe Ohio Board of Regents' budget request for 1981/83.Understandably, this request was omitted from the Gov-ernor's budget for that difficult biennium.
Since then, almost all of the IULC libraries have madeprogress in retrospective conversion. with institutionaland some private and federal support. But cataloging forca. 2.1 million items in these libraries remains to beconverted, for which effort funding cannot readily beexpectc-I without the targeted support (estimated at ca.$4 million) sought in the proposal which follows.
Increases in OCLC charges, labor costs, and changes incataloging standards have worked to make the retro-spective conversion process more complex than wasprojected in 1979/80, and therefore more costly, nowestimated to be an average cost of $1.93 per item. Thisproposal, it must be emphasized, would involve con-version of cataloging for only the major core of libraryholdings acquired before 1971, namely, conventional
'"OCLC" originally stood for Ohio College Library Center, acomputer-based cooperative begun it 1967. It has since become theOnline Computer Library Center, an international organization with adatabase of more than 13 million entries for books and other libraryholdings at more than six thousand libraries. Once any library hascontributed cataloging for an item to the OCLC database, that infor-mation is available :o all other affiliated libraries to catalog othercopies, at which time a "holding symbol" is added to the database toshow which libraries have that item. Savings in the cost of wastefulduplicative local cataloging are significant.
55
books and journals. It is felt widely among the IULClibraries that after completion of the project, whichwould require 2-3 years work, there should be a follow-on effort to add information to OCLC about tens of thou-sands of other items of great value in these collections,including government documents, maps, sound record-ings, and items in microform.
Introduction
The objective of resource sharing among libraries is toimprove access to books, journals, and other library ma-terials for library users wherever the people or thelibrary materials may be located. For that reason, allcitizens of Ohio are potential beneficiaries of the projectproposed herein. Anyone who fails to find a needed bookor serial publication on the shelves of a local library maysearch the OCLC online union catalog to learn where inOhio or elsewhere in the country that title may beavailable. The person may then request interlibrary loanof the item (or, perhaps, a photocopy of a needed sec-tion) or plan to travel to a library to use the item there.In either case, the objective of bringing together peopleand the books and serial publications they needpromptly and at least cost is advanced. Availabilityof a substantial amount of information on the OCLCsystem already assists many thousands of Ohio citizensin locating needed books and journals from librariesthroughout the state and nation.
Prerequisite to sharing of actual materials is the sharingof cataloging information which describes the ma-terials and holdings information which indicatesin what libraries the items are located. Indeed, econ-omies of shared cataloging (avoiding wasteful duplicateeffort by highly trained staff) and consequent benefits ofimproved access to library collections were the principalreasons for the creation of the Ohio College Library Cen-ter's pioneering computer-based union catalog early inthe 1970's. These needs have also been the impetus forOCLC's rapid and successful transformation into the in-ternational network (now known as the Online ComputerLibrary Center) which links, online, more than six thou-sand libraries throughout North America and Europe.
The active cooperation of many Ohio libraries, including
59
all IULC members, in the creation and nurturing ofOCLC (with significant support in early years from theOhio Board of Regents) already has made possible sub-stantial improvements in the ability of the IULC librariesto share books and journals among themselves and withother libraries (See Table A, appended). This extraor-dinary growth in direct sharing of library materials hasbeen aided since 1981 by OCLC's implementation of thecapability to transmit electronically, terminal-to-termi-nal, interlibrary loan messages among participating li-braries. This supplements much slower and less reliablemethods that depend on preparation of typewritten re-quests to be sent through the mails. OCLC has thus comefar toward achieving one of its original goals: creationof a shared (or "union") catalog of library holdingswhich people may use to locate and then to request theloan of books wad other items that their local librariescannot provide.
But much remains to be done. The consensus of theIULC member libraries is that first attention must begiven to completing the retrospective conversion of cat-alog records for books and serial publications (publica-tions, journals, yearbooks, etc.) that wcze acquired andprocessed by the IULC libraries in the decades beforethe advent of OCLC. Without this project, much of thewealth of significant works of law, history, literature,art, music, and science acquired by several of these im-portant libraries before 1971 simply cannot be identifiedand located by people who need them; nor, ultimatelycan decisions so readily be made about which titles (andcopies of those titles) should be stored and preserved.An additional important consideration: it is judged es-sential that this project be undertaken to provide thecomputerized catalogir.g information about each IULClibrary's holdings which is essential if each library is tomake more and better use of in-house computer-basedcirculation and catalog systems. (OCLC would make thisinformation available to each library at minimal addi-tional cost as a direct by-product of the project.)
There has been significant demonstrated progress in re-cent years toward achieving the goal of improved libraryresource sharing in Ohio. For example, beyond the directuse of OCLC by more than 200 Ohio libraries for cata-loging of currently received material, the cataloging andholdings information that represents the most importantcollections of the state's several major public librariesalready has been added to OCLC in a similar cooperativeproject made possible by awards of federal funds through
56
the State Library of Ohio under the Library Services andConstruction Act (for which the project proposed hereinis not eligible). Also, OHIONET (an organization ofpublic, school, college, university, and special libraries,which is the state-level network successor to the OhioCollege Library Center) and others from the commercialsector have assisted interested Ohio libraries in devel-oping many in-house computer-based circulation, inven-tory-control, and catalog systems. These in-housesystems could (indeed, ultimately should) also be con-nected library-to-library to make possible rapid identi-fication about which books, journals, etc., across Ohioarc available for use, information which is more specificthan OCLC is inter ded to provide. For example, OhioState already makes available to IULC libraries onlineaccess to its computerized catalog and circulation system(which incorporates holdings of the State Library ofOhio), thereby greatly facilitating awareness throughoutOhio of the day-to-day availability of many of the titlesin these two centrally important collections.
Benefiting most, of course, from this project would bethe thousands of faculty and tens of thousands of stu-dents at the IULC universities who would be able to havefuller awareness of what library collections exist in sisterinstitutions across the state. But, as already indicated,all people in Ohio many of whom may need to haveaccess to titles not readily available in library collectionsclose at hand will also benefit. If this project is ap-proved and funded, the state-assisted universities, bysharing their library colections more widely, will pro-vide a better return for the taxpayer on the extraordinarycapital investment that these collections represent.
It is precisely this advanced state of cooperation towardwhich all efforts at sharing of library resources in Ohiomust ultimately be directed:
1. the presence of information on the OCLC system thatidentifies which hocks and other items are in whichlibraries,
2. development of links with local library informationabout each item s current availability for use or bor-rowing, and
3. development of improved systems to speed actual de-livery of wanted items to the user.
Prerequisite to achieving these goals for the people ofOhio is completion of the computer-readable biblio-graphic data base of all significant cataloged book andjournal holdings of the IULC libraries.
60
Proposal
A preliminary survey indicates that approximately 2.1million catalog entries for books and serial publicationsheld by IULC member libraries are candidates for con-version to computerized form (See Table B, appended).Based on experience in retrospective conversion effortselsewhere in the nation, it is estimated that direct costsof the project will average $1.93 per catalog record con-verted for a total of ca. $4 million, to be distributedamong the libraries based on the extent and estimateddifficulty of each library's task.
The costs of retrospective conversion will vary from li-brary to library because of the types of cataloging in-volved, whether relatively straightforward orcomplicated. In the case of especially complex problem-solving, for which work must be done by a professionallibrarian-cataloger, costs obviously increase. To illus-trate: The lowest direct cost (labor and OCLC charges)of converting a traditional catalog card record to com-puter-readable form is approximately 550, in those in-stances in which a special microcomputer-based programoffered by OCLC could be employed. This most simpletype of conversion would meet, for example, many ofthe needs of both Ohio State and Miami for much oftheir portion of the project, but beyond that, there existsa continuum of increasingly complex work, movingfrom that which must be performed by Classified CivilService and paraprofessional staff to work which librar-ians must perform. The $1.93 average unit cost of con-version estimated for this project reflects a mix ofrelatively older and therefore often problematic catalog-ing, and takes into particular account the highly complexcataloging of serial publications represented. As a checkon this estimate, comparison was made with a similarproject recently funded at the University of Minnesota,where conversion costs are projected to average $2.30per item for ca. 1.1 million items.
Each IULC member library will be responsible for itsown portion of the project, making local decisions aboutthe most efficient mix of methods to be used, that is,whether to do the work on site or to contract with others(including OCLC) to do the work. Administrative costsand other overhead expenses will be borne by each li-brary; and all have agreed that the project, as described,will be completed without requesting additional specialfunding from state government.
57
Conclusion
This proposed investment in cooperation will make pos-sible a substantial advance in the effectiveness of thelibraries of state-assisted universities in Ohio. The re-sults will benefit the many mdividis and groups whorely on these libraries to support research and teachingand will advance other educational and cultural interestsin the state. Expenditures of a relatively modest amount(when viewed in the context of the value of the booksand journals in the collections) would go far toward mak-ing more useful to all citizens of Ohio the full range ofextensive library holdings collected during the last cen-tury.
The principal benefits that would accrue to the peopleof Ohio are as follows:
1., The presence of more cataloging and holdings infor-mation on OCLC will promote direct improvementsin interlibrary cooperation, as virtually all Ohio li-braries will be better able to identify for their usersitems available to be borrowed from (or consulted onsite at) the IULC libraries. The comparison of statis-tical information on borrowing of books by the IULClibraries from 1967/68 before the advent of OCLC
with that for 1984/85 (represented in Table A) isdirect and striking evidence of one of the most pos-itive consequences of the creation of the OCLC on-line union catalog, but can only suggest the greatlyincreased benefits that the addition of more data toOCLC would promote.
2. The speed of transmitting many borrowing requestsfrom one library to another will be substantially in-creased, since requests can more readily be trans-mitted online on the OCLC interlibrary loan sub-system.
3. The patterns of borrowing among Ohio librarie, maybe changed so as to distribute interlibrary lending andborrowing more widely among these libraries. Tra-ditionally, if a person at a given library requests anitem not available locally, that library's staff, beingunaware of more geographically convenient copies ofthe wanted title, usually seeks to borrow it fromlarger, often remote libraries. This clearly places anunnecessarily uneven burden on library resourcesthroughout the state. With comprehensive statewideinformation about more libraries' holdings, many
61
Ohio citizens should find more desired titles at closerand more conveniently located libraries.
4. More informed decisiors about local retention or off-site storage and preservation of older books and jour-nals will be possible among Ohio's libraries only ifcataloging and holdings information for all items iswidely and readily available online. This benefit will,
58
in the long term, prove to be of the greatest impor-tance in comprehensive cooperative storage and pres-ervation programs. It must be emphasized here thatretrospective conversion would have minimal effectson the need for funding for current acquisitions,since faculty and students will continue to expect tofind most recently published basic items on theshelves of their local campus library.
62
TABLE AINTERUBRARY BORROWING BY IULC MEMBER UBRARIES: A COMPARISON
Instftution
1967/68(PRE-OCLC)*
1984/85"
TOTAL No. ItemsBorrowed
... from Ohiolibraries
TOTAL No. ItemsBorrowed
... from Ohiolibraries
... from Ohio librariesvia OCLC
Akron 1,425 930 7,123 N/A 4,830
Bowling Green 933 286 4,391 3,014 2,894
Central State 158 146 - - -Cincinnati 740 165 6,521 3,651 2,547
Cleveland State 1,091 936
1,108 J723
11,122
8,364
3,626
6,845
5,688
2,173
6,442
5,298
2,012
Kent State 3,470
Miami 837
Ohio State 5,739 858 8,289 4,318 1,130
Ohio University 2,742 999 9,940 6,314 5,715
Toledo 862 216 4,607 3,145 3,140
Wright State 936 610 2,223 1,690 1,407
Youngstown 75 40 2,082 1,501 1,256
TOTAL 19,007 7,017 68,288 38,339 36,671
As repotted In Goldwyn, A. J. and Edward Verhosek, A Study of Extra-Institutional Use of Libraries by Ohio Academic Personnel. (Cleveland: CaseWestern Reserve University School of Library Science, 1969), p. 38.
"As repotted in a survey conducted by W. J. Crowe, Ohio State University Libraries, Winter 1985186.
63
aj
POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION FUNDS
Akron ca. 8,500 items @ $2.25 / item $ 19,125
Bowling Green State 32,300 2.25 72,675
Cincinnati 193,000 2.10 405,300
Cleveland State 18,500 2.25 41,625
Kent State University 15,000 2.25 33,750
Miami 458,000 2.00 916,000
Ohio State University 1,100,000 1.80 1,980,000
Ohio University 175,000 2.10 367,500
Shawnee State 550 2.25 1,238
Toledo 10,000 2.25 22,500
Wright State University 10,500 2.25 23,625
Youngstown State University 35,100 2.25 78,975
2,055,450 $1.93 $3,962,313
64
TABLE BCATALOG RECORDS FOR BOOKS AND SERIALS AT IULC MEMBER UBRARIES
AVAILABLE FOR CONVERSION TO MACHINE-READABLE FORM
BOOKS SERIALS(PERIODICALS)
Akron 8,500 (none)
Bowling Green Slate 32,000 300
Central State (none) (none)
Cincinnati 175,000 18,000
Cleveland State* 13,500 5,000
Kent State 15,000 (none)
Miami 450,000 8,000
Ohio State* 1,020,000 80,000
Ohio University 174,500 500
Shawnee State (none) 550
Toledo* 6,000 4,000
Wright State 4,500 6.000
Youngstown State 35,100 (none)
TOTALS 1,934,100 122,350
*Includes the Law Library (Conversion projects have been completed at other law libraries.)
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
63
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reports from Various States
ALABAMA"Cooperative Library Resource Sharing Among
Universities Supporting Graduate Studies inAlabama." Alabama Commission on HigherEducation, Montgomery (April, 1982). Photocopyreport by Alabama Commission on ligherEducation Council of Librarians.
Medina, Sue 0. "Network of Alabama AcademicLibraries: An Emerging State Network." AlabamaCommission on Higher Education, Montgomery(1986). Draft photocopy.
ARIZONA"Arizona State University West Campus Mission and
Scope Statement." Administrator (January 12,1987). Includes description of ASU West Librarycollection. Photocopy.
"Arizona State University Libraries CollectionDevelopment Policy Statement: A Planning Toolfor the Future Growth of the Collections."Administrator (January 12, 1987). Photocopy.
"Staffing Implications of ASU West Library Model."Administrator (January 12, 1987). Photocopy.
CALIFORNIALawrence, Gary S. "A Cost Model for Storage and
Weeding Programs." College and ResearchLibraries (March, 1981): 139-147.
Lawrence, Gary S. and Anne R. Oja. "An EconomicCriterion for Housing and Disposing of LibraryMaterials, Based on Frequency of Circulation."Library Studies and Research Division, Universityof California Systemwide Administration,Research Report RR 79-2 (September 24, 1979).
Lawrence, Gary S. and Anne R. Oja. "The use ofGeneral Collections at the University ofCalifornia: A Study of Unrecorded Use, At-the-Shelf Discovery, and Immediacy of Need forMaterials at the Davis and Santa Cruz CampusLibraries." Library Studies and Research Division,University of California SystemwideAdministration, Research Report RR-80-1(January 30, 1980).
Scheiber, Harry N. "UC Libraries: A Plan forDevelopment." University of California-San Diego(November, 1976). Review of the document.
"The University of California Libraries: A Plan forDevelopment, 1978-88." Office of the Exe'utiveDirector of Universitywide Planning (July, 1977).Photocopy.
Thompson, Donald D. "In-house Use of Immediacyof Need: The Riverside Pilot Studies." LibraryStudies and Research Division, University ofCalifornia Systemwide Administration (November,1978). Pilot study.
COLORADOJohns, Claude and Beverly Moore, editors. "Colorado
Academic Library Master Plan." ColoradoCommission on Higher Education (March, 1985).Revision of 1982 document. Photocopy.
CONNECTICUT"New Directions for Educational Technology."
Connecticut State Department of Education,Hartford (1983). Committee report andrecommendations by Joint Committee onEducational Technology.. Photocopy.
ILLINOISCollier, Martin H. "Sixth Stack Addition: The
University of Illinois Tops Off Its StorageCapacity with a High Density Mobile ShelvingStorage Facility." Library Journal (December 1,1982).
"Expansion and Enhancement of the LibraryComputer System (LCS) in .!linois: A Proposalfor Support through the Higher EducationCooperation Act." Report of Illinois LibraryComputer Systems Organization (October, 1986).Photocopy.
McBride, Ruth B. "Experiences with CompactShelving at a Major University Library." LibraryAdministration and Management Association(1985).
Itterson, Kenneth G. "Promoting Cooperation AmongAcademic Libraries in Illinois: The Role of theIACRIABHE Liaison Committee." IllinoisLibraries, Office of the Secretary of State, IllinoisState Library, Vol. 68:7 (September, 1986): 465-470.
"Report of the Space Utilization SubcommitteeRegarding Library Stack Shelving Capacities andNeeds in Illinois Public Universities." Report
65 6 7
developed by a subcommittee appointed byIACRL/IBHE (July, 1984).
Sloan, Bernard G. "Resource Sharing AmongAcademic Libraries: the LCS Experience." TheJournal of Academic Librarians*, Volume 12k1986): 26-29.
MARYLAND"The Status of Academic Libraries in Maryland's
Public Colleges azicl Universities." State Board forHigher Education, Angnoolis, (March, 1985).
MINNESOTALongenecker, David A. "MINITEX/OPLIC 'Risk Force
Report on Standards for Online Catalogs andOnline Circulation Systems." (1984 revision).Photocopy.
"Library Automation in the MINITEX Region: AStatus Report to the Bush Foupdation." MinnesotaHigher Education Coordinating i and (June 9,1986). Photocopy.
"Minnesota Interlibrary Telecommunications Exchange(MINITEX): A Status Repoli." Minnesota HigherEducation Coordinating Board (March, 1986).Photocopy.
NEBRASKA"Nebraska's Plan for the Coordination of
Postsecondary Educational Libraries: APreliminary Statement." The PostsecondaryLibrary Directors of Nebraska (May 14, 1976).Photocopy.
OHIO"Directory of Ohio Libraries, 1987." State Library of
Ohio, Columbus. Addresses and personnel listingsfor the State Library and all academic,institutional, public, special, and school librarymedia centers in Ohio.
OKLAHOMA"Academic Libraries: Annual Report el Academic
Libraries in Oklahoma." Oklahoma State Regentsfor Pigher Education (April 1986). Photocopy.
"Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Study ofAcademic Libraries in Oklahoma." OklahomaState Regents for Higher Education (May, 1985).Photocopy.
PENNSYLVANIA"Access Ftnnsylvania: An Agenda for Knlwledge and
Information Through Libraries." Department ofEducation, Harrisburg (September 4, 1984).Library Planning Council, State Library ofFtnnsylvania. Photocopy.
SOUTH DAKOTAEaton, Nancy, John Mayeski, and Robert D. Stuart.
"Toward the Twenty-First Century: PubliclySupported Academic Libraries and the StateLibrary of South Dakota." South Dakota Board ofRegents, Pierre (1986). Photocopy.
TENNESSEE"Report on the Estimated Cost of Full Participation in
OCLC Solino by Public Postsecondary AcademicLibraries." Tennessee Higher EducationCommission (September, 1986). Photocopy.
VIRGINIA"Academic Library Facility Needs in Virginia's Public
System of Higher Education." Virginia StateCouncil of Higher Education (December, 1986).ihotocopy.
"Academic Library Facility Needs in Virginia's PublicSystem of Higher Education." Task Force onLibrary Facilities (October, 1986). Photocopy.
Mlimellaneous Documents
"An Evaluative Checklist for Reviewing a CollegeLibrary Program." C&RL News (no dateincluded): 305-316. Standards and accreoitationCommittee of the ACRL Adopted by the ACRLBoard of Directors, June, 1979.
"ARL Statistics, 1985-86." Association of ResearchLibraries (August 22, 1986).
Bok, Derek. "President's Report, 1983-84." HarvardUniversity (March, 1985).
Coughlin, Ellen K. "University Librarians Fear theImpact of Budget Cuts at Library of Congress."The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 21,1986).
Gardner, David Pierpont. `The Charge of the ByteBrigade: Educators Lead the Fourth Revolution."Educational Record (Winter, 1986): 10-15.
"Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning ResourcesPrograms (Revised)." C &RL News (January/
February, 1982). Approved by the ACRL Boardof Directors, June, 1981.
Hyatt, James A. "University Libraries in Transition."NACUBO Business Officer (June, 1986): 35-39.
"Kellogg Gives $3.7 Million for Electronic Archive."The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 15,1986).
Rochell, Carlton C. "The Next Decade: DistributedAccess to Information" Library Journal (February1. 1987): 42-48
67
"Standards for College Libraries, 1986." C&RL News(March, 1986): 189-200. Prepared by the CollegeLibrary Standards Committee and approved by theACRL Board of Directors, January, 1986.
"Standards for University Libraries." College andResearch Library News (April, 1979): 103-110.Statement prepared by a joint committee of theARL and ACRL of the American LibraryAssociation.
69
