ALA Midwmter 1993 381

ing, etc. There was repeated emphasis on taking regular breaks to allow for physical and men- tal rest.

Mouw presented information about workstation design for serial checkin. He recommended the following document for technical specifications and standards, American National Stan- dard for Human Factors Engineering of Visual Display Terminal Workstations (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1988). Mouw stressed that the workstation should be considered a unit made up of desk, chair, and terminal rather than components chosen at random. Light, noise, temperature, and elbow room are important factors in physical design. Much discus- sion of chair design and choice took place. While it is considered best to have a chair that fits the person, many times individual purchases are not possible because of budget limitations. Mouw stated that the chair should integrate with the workstation, but that it must be easily adjustable if it is to be used by more than one person. Mouw emphasized providing as much variety as possible to allow for individual preferences.

The session concluded with questions and comments that suggested that many institutions are coping with workplace injuries in a variety of ways, but there is a common effort to assess ergonomic conditions and to involve workers in tasks that allow them to vary their movements and positions.

Beverley Geer-Butler Trinity University Library

Maddux Library, 715 Stadium Dr. San Antonio, TX 78212

ALCTS Pre-Order/Pre-Catalog Search Discussion Group

“Total Quality Management (TQM) and the Search Process: We Do It All For You . . . But Do We Need To?” was the topic of this lively session at the 1993 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver. Marsha Hamilton, Head, Monograph Acquisition Division, The Ohio State Univer- sity, began by outlining some basic principles of TQM. These included: studying the current process, setting specific goals, empowering all people in the process to “do the right thing the first time” to insure quality, and matching level of quality and output to specific customer needs. Although TQM has been popular in the profit sector, Hamilton outlined reasons that institutions like libraries may have difficulty accepting TQM. For example, the public sector doesn’t go “out of business” if productivity is not competitive. Customer satisfaction is hard to measure in service industries, and some organizations are hesitant to empower employees to make changes in the workflow from the ground up.

Deborah Fetch, Head, Ordering Section at Pennsylvania State University, described in detail the application of TQM to the reorganization of the preorder search process at Penn State, which they termed a Continuous Quality Improvement Process Review. The University estab- lished a Quality Management Office and 1,300 employees were trained in TQM principles. They formed 56 teams across the campus including those in the Libraries. Over 70 library employees received further training with a future goal of 100% employee attendance in TQM training. Eventually seven teams were to operate in the Libraries including one devoted to the preorder search process.

The existing preorder search process had been in place since the 1980s when the online cat-

382 ALA Midwinter 1993

alog was implemented. The team outlined the current process and interviewed 136 “custom- ers” to identify problems with quality and timeliness. Specific goals were set to correct the problems identified. Workflows at other institutions were examined and solutions were rec- ommended including discontinuation of OCLC/RLIN searching for items with publisher’s brochures, changes in the sorting process to identify rush orders, and elimination of a com- plex color coding system. Additional staff training and improved documentation were also recommended.

The ongoing quality improvement project at Penn State had several positive effects accord- ing to Fetch. Whereas changes in the past had been discussed only at the supervisory level, now staff were involved and developed a broader understanding of the library. Staff devel- oped ownership of the process and acted more consistently to improve quality. Procedures became more streamlined, communication improved, and morale is higher.

A vendor perspective was offered by Glen Secor, Chief Executive Officer of Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) who spoke on TQM and customer satisfaction, efficiency, and commercial reality in the profit sector. In April 1991, a Quality Assessment Department was formed at YBP to audit quality standards. YBP’s program included employee training, an employee rec- ognition program to honor outstanding performance, and publication of the Quality Update newsletter to inform employees of ongoing programs and findings. A Quality Kick-Off Day was held in March 1992 in which staff received training and took a pledge to “. . . make a con- stant, conscious effort to do my job right the first time, recognizing that my individual con- tribution is a vital part of the success of YBP.”

Their goal was to provide the customer with the correct item 100% of the time. The initial emphasis was to study parts of the process, such as handling books in the warehouse. Order- related errors were studied and divided into human error, system limitations, and informa- tion discrepancies. Ten critical data elements necessary to insure quality were identified. Human and system errors were addressed with internal changes in training and procedure. Incoming requests from customers were then studied, and approximately 60% were found to have missing or contradictory information, which caused YBP staff to make assumptions about what was being requested or required them to contact the customer for more informa- tion. The questions then became: what would be required to eliminate all order uncertainty and would the solution be worthwhile from a cost-benefit standpoint? Secor outlined areas in the industry in need of improvement including quality of data in large bibliographic sources such as publisher/vendor databases; improved transmission, receipt, and standardization of data from libraries; and increased flow of information from publishers to vendors regarding title changes, publication information, etc. Like Fetch, Secor emphasized the value of imple- menting an ongoing quality improvement program and pointed to improved communication and morale as early benefits.

Discussion covered a wide range of topics including the question of whether supervisors felt uninformed when staff communicated directly with one another concerning quality issues. Secor agreed this can happen and Fetch noted Penn State’s structure may flatten and some managers be reassigned. One of the difficult transitions was for managers to let go of part of the process in order to allow others to become more actively involved. Other questions included: what level of quality is most cost effective, when is it more cost effective for librar- ies to absorb mistakes or accept incorrect items rather than spend staff time on returns, what is the cost in staff time of implementing a continuous quality program such as TQM and are the results worth it, can duplicative searching or processing in libraries be eliminated, should vendors offer more value-added databases and services, has the quality of information pro- vided to vendors decreased since libraries began to streamline procedures to cut technical ser-

ALA Midwinter 1993 383

vices costs, what is the most cost effective use of OCLC, and should bibliographic records selected in the acquisition process be accepted or revised after receipt of the item? The con- cept of an ideal workflow to acquire and process items for the library was raised. That glimpse into a utopian process of the future will be the topic of the Pre-Order/Pre-Catalog Search Dis- cussion Group at ALA in New Orleans in 1993.

Marsha Hamilton Head, Monograph Acquisition Division

The Ohio State University Libraries 1858 Neil Avenue Mall

Columbus, OH 43210-1286

ALCTS Acquisitions Administrators Discussion Group

Joseph Barker, Head of the Acquisitions Department at the University of California, mod- erated a discussion on “How Many Librarians Does It Take to Run an Acquisitions Depart- ment?” Although many of the 80 or so people present participated, it was actually more than just a discussion. It was a live audience participation research survey. The twin purposes of the exercise were to find out what acquisitions departments now look like and, based on what has happened in recent years, what trends can be identified affecting their organization and staffing.

Barker raised issues covering five areas. Summaries of the more important questions and responses are given here.

Composition of acquisitions departments these days-it is extremely variable. Twenty-five percent of the participants work with monographs only, 60% with monographs and serials, and 15% work in other functions besides acquisitions: bindery and shelving, interlibrary loan, and document delivery were mentioned. Four people indicated that their acquisitions depart- ments were disappearing. Having no acquisitions department, Barker summarized, may be the light, dark or light at the end of the tunnel.

Number of librarians in acquisitions departments-seventy-five percent have one or two librarians, the balance, three or four. A few librarians, as seen above, have responsibilities elsewhere. Eighty percent deal with accounting as well as acquisitions. Forty percent are non- librarians in former librarian positions. Twenty percent felt that they could handle more responsibilities.

Rate of reorganizing - since January 1991, 50% of the libraries have undergone major reor- ganizations of their acquisitions departments. So far in the 1990s there have been 50% more reorganizations than in the 1980s. Yet, when asked if they would like changes to stop, no one says yes. Three percent said that they wanted more change, either to improve on past changes or to continue current changes. Very few people are in control of the changes affecting them. A few expressed the feeling that reorganization is something that is done to them.

Reasons for reorganizations-participants gave the following as reasons for reorganizing: retirement (lo%), the inability to fill open positions (40%), consolidation of functions (20(70), efficiency (4Wo), the switch to a new automated system (25%), reassignment of problem staff (15%), combination of monograph and serials acquisitions functions together and/or with col- lection development (50%), reduction in middle management (lo%), and movement of librar- ians to other departments and replacement of them with nonlibrarians (10%). Related to this