Small but pristine — lessons for small library automation
| Published date | 01 April 1990 |
| Pages | 244-248 |
| Date | 01 April 1990 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb044990 |
| Author | Russell Clement,Dane Robertson |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Article
Small but pristine —
lessons for small library
automation
Russell Clement
Harold
B.
Lee
Library,
Brigham
Young
University,
Provo, UT
84602,
USA.
Dane Robertson
Dynix lnc,
151
East
1700
South,
Provo, UT 84606,
USA.
Abstract:
Small libraries are often more successful at
effective automation than the large resource-rich research
libraries. One reason is that their pragmatic attitudes turn
many of the small libraries' disadvantages in
the
areas of
collection, staff and budget size to their advantage. Small
collections are more readily automated and easily
accessed,
they have limited automation budgets and measurable
improvements in basic services and operations receive top
priority. This creates
a
results-oriented accountability
which pressures smaller
libraries
to make their systems
work or to look elsewhere. Large libraries, by
contrast,
are
often disappointed
when
overly ambitious automation
projects flounder. Bringing software development in-house
often only compounds the problem. This paper argues that
large libraries should follow
the
lead of their less
prestigious neighbors by focusing on a more practical
approach to automation.
1.
A
tale of two libraries
Take a town with two good
libraries.
One is a major academic
research library with nearly three million volumes in its col-
lections. The other is a comparatively small 80,000-volume
public library which for decades has atrophied in the shadow
of its larger and more prestigious neighbor. Since both li-
braries have become automated, however, it's been the best of
times and the worst of
times.
Automation in the form of online user catalogs was un-
veiled at both libraries at about the same time in the mid
1980s. Because of differences in size and purpose, each se-
lected a different system. Both went about the selection pro-
cess logically and enthusiastically. They carefully formulated
their needs, studied what was available, deliberated and
fretted, and finally made what appeared to be good choices.
In selecting its system, the research library kept on safe
ground by buying the same system that many similar large
academic libraries had. The public library opted for
a
turnkey
system from
a
vendor with more experience in automation for
small and medium- sized libraries.
After living with their respective systems for several years
the shock of the new has worn off. People are used to what
automation can and cannot do. Hopes, promises, and other
preconceptions have given way to the realities of daily use.
2.
The reality
To contrast the two systems, we looked first at public access.
The academic library planned to bring its public access
ter-
minals online in 1985, but was delayed for two years. The
public library, in the meantime, brought its public access
module up
as
planned in
1986,
on schedule and within months
of other major system functions.
The ability to automate on schedule is just one of many
differences. The academic library only has records for books
acquired after 1978 on its system. This means that users must
search in both the online catalog and in the card catalog,
which was closed in 1985. The public library has its entire
database on its computer, including media and periodical
titles.
With a single command patrons can also search the col-
lections of
six
local school libraries.
Both systems offer keyword (boolean) searching. How-
ever, the large research library allows keyword search only on
a few terminals, while all of the public library's terminals
have this capability. Because keyword searches adversely af-
fect the response time for the research library's entire system,
this important feature is not
as
widely promoted as it could be.
Search results are also quite different. Following a five-
minute wait to get to the keyword terminal at the research
library, a keyword title search for 'Civil War' accessed an
impressive 1310 entries. But it took an additional 45 seconds
before the first title was listed on the
screen.
Displaying every
title would take over an hour. Ironically, a sign posted on the
keyword terminal reads 'Please limit your search to five
minutes if others are waiting'! The same keyword search for
'Civil War' at the public library displayed 122 titles, after a
4-second wait.
Although both systems use the same kind of terminals, the
screens have a much different look. In an article on screen
design for online catalogs, Joseph R. Matthews writes that
information density should never be more than 30% of the
available character space, with
15%
being the recommended
level (Matthews
1987).
The initial screen on the public access
terminal at the research library uses more than 44%; help
screens exceed
52%.
The initial screen at the public library
is between 13-14% and appears much cleaner and more in-
viting.
244 The Electronic Library, Vol. 8, No. 4, August 1990
To continue reading
Request your trial