Governmenr Pub~icurio~s Review, Vol. 17, pp. 251-256, 1990

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0277-93~/~ $3.00 + .oO

Copyright 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

USING AUTOMATED ITEM FILES AS THE BASIS FOR EFFECTIVE COLLECTION MANAGEMENT AND COOPERATIVE COLLECTION

DEVELOPMENT A Note

JOHN WALTERS* Documents/Reference Librarian, Boatwright Memorial Library, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 USA

Abstract - This article promotes the use of an automated item file, for selective depositories, as an effective device for collection management and cooperative collection development. This article suggests ways to implement such a device and describes the kinds of useful data that the automated file can generate.

AUTOMATED ITEM FILES

Much has been done in recent years to improve public access to U.S. federal publications. The proliferation of online public catalogs, along with library administrators’ commitment to include documents in such catalogs, has certainly facilitated access, as have a number of CD-ROM products, both commercially and federally produced, that provide superior access to congressional publications, the translations of FBIS, and executive agency documents in general.

The need for a stand-alone automated documents shelflist-which once seemed urgent-seems less compelling today, in view of these contemporaneous technological developments. As one looks with favor on the significant advances in providing public access on the one hand, one can only watch with dismay, on the other, as U.S. depository collections continue to grow aimlessly, without the necessary apparatus to hold them in check.

To manage collections effectively, one needs to identify, select, and retain documents for which there is an enduring demand, as well as identify and systematically dispose of unwanted documents. The need is great for federal depositories, especially selective depositories, to know precisely what it is they have in their collections. Equally pressing is the need to know not only what neighboring depositories have in their collections, but also to engage them, whenever possible, in a program of cooperative collection development. To generate such knowledge and cooperation would enable depositories to make judicious selections and deselections, and provide some assurance that depositories are making the best possible use of overcrowded shelves and diminishing floor space.

For the selective depository the relationship between effective management and cooperative collection development is inextricable. The chief impediment to effective collection management, which Bruce Morton identified and dealt with successfully at Carleton College, is the card file, an ungainly device that obscures the holdings of depository collections [ 11. This traditional tool hinders rather than promotes efforts to become better managers. The card file has a dispi~ting

*John Walters has worked as a documents librarian at the University of Alabama, a regional depository, and at the University of Wisconsin/Stevens Point,

Current address: 3802 Sutton Place, Apt. 1310, Winter Park, FL 32792.

251

252 J. WALTERS

effect on those who wish to collect documents cooperatively, largely because it is incapable of generating the kind of data that provides the basis for cooperative collection development. Automated item files, as Bruce Morton discovered nearly a decade ago, make such joint endeavors possible. Morton’s pioneering work served as the impetus for the project described below.

CASE STUDY FOR COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

The city of Richmond, Virginia is served by three selective depositories: the Virginia State Library, Cabell Library at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), and Boatwright Memorial Library (BML), at the University of Richmond. Among the three depositories, VCU is the largest selector (70 percent of depository items), but it has expressed an interest in reducing its level of selecting; the University of Richmond selects 50 percent; and the Virginia State Library selects slightly less than 50 percent. The existence of two comparably-sized depositories, in addition to the presence of a third depository that intends to implement a modest program of deselection, invited efforts toward cooperative collection development.

While the documents librarians at these three institutions suspected that there was needless duplication among their depositories, they also felt that they were failing to provide sufficient item number availability to the community that they served. These suspicions were all based on impressions rather than empirical data.

For the institutions to cooperate effectively, an automated device that could generate the following kinds of data was needed.

1. The items that the institutions selected in common. 2. The items that none of the libraries selected. 3. The items that each library selected, exclusive of the other two.

Items that were commonly selected might be considered candidates for deselection by one or two depositories, subject to negotiations among the three depositories. For example, it may be unnecessary for all three depositories to select certain Defense Department publications; the burden of selecting such publications may devolve upon the depository that serves. for example, a substantial military science program; or perhaps it might be decided to distribute the burden equally among the three depositories. The items that none of the depositories currently select would be candidates for selection, subject to negotiations and based on respective subject strengths. Items held by one library, exclusive of the other two, would be candidates for continued selection by the selecting library.

SOFTWARE

To generate the desired data, the depositories chose, in consultation with the University of Richmond’s Academic Computing Center, a commercial software package produced by Meckler- soft called GOVDOX [2], which has a number of positive attributes. Among them are the following.

1. It is inexpensive. 2. It is easy to use. 3. GOVDOX was designed in conjunction with a documents librarian. 4. Though the program is written in compiled dBase III, a copy of dBase III is not required to run

GOVDOX.

The GOVDOX program operation requires DOS 2.0 or greater, 256 K RAM or greater memory, an IBM-PC/XT or AT or compatible machine. The University of Richmond runs GOVDOX on an

Automated item files 253

SuDoc:

TI:

Date:

Subject:

Note:

Item:

Figure 1: Sample of GOVDOX workform.

AT & T 6300. Due to the size of the database, a hard disk is required. GOVDOX was designed as a documents check-in-system, but its features are well-suited to automating item files.

Among the options provided in GOVDOX’s main menu is one that enables the database manager to add items to the database. Upon selecting this option, the workform is provided (Figure 1).

A sample record from the Active/Selected file (see Figure 2), which represents an item received in paper that all three depositories select. In the date field, the date on which the item began to be selected was entered. The subject field was chosen to indicate issuing agency/bureau, thereby providing a list of the depositories’ selected and rejected items on an agency-by-agency basis. For the purpose of entering the name of the issuing agency, initialisms were created from the first letter of the parent agency, followed by the initials of the bureau, as they appear in the List

of Classes. In the sample record (see Figure 2) LLSB represents the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the initial L for Labor Department, LSB for Labor Statistics Bureau, which is the way it is entered in the List of Classes. The notesfield contains first the format of the item, paper or microfiche, then the holdings.

The automated database consists of the following three files:

1. Active/Selected. This is the file consisting of currently available items that the University of Richmond’s Library, Boatwright Memorial, selects. Holdings for VSL and VCU are included in the notesfield. From this file one can identify all of the items that are selected by BML only.

SAMPLE RECORD

SuDoc: L 2.6: Item: 770 - TI: Monthly Labor Review

Date: 08/06/40 Subject: LLSB Note: P:VCU:UR

Figure 2: Sample record from Active/Selected file.

254 J. WALTERS

SuDo~AX3.13: Item: 0855

TI: Information Pamphlets Relatino to National Forests

Date: 06/02/84

Subject: a

Notes: w

Figure 3: Active/Selected file: home depository, followed by letter 0, in nofe~ field.

To identify these records, the letter 0 is entered in the notes field, of all such records (see

Figure 3).

Holdings of the three participating depositories were then derived from the Union List of Depository Item Selections and entered on the Library Program Service’s printout of item selections. If, for example, a depository selected item number 001, one would check to see which, if any, participating depositories selected it. Holdings symbols were entered next to each item number on the LPS printout, or if only one depository selected an item, another symbol indicating selection was entered on the LPS printout. Having once obtained the holdings data, BML began to enter records into the database. To ensure that all titles associated with an item number are included, one must enter a depository’s active item selections from the appendix titled “List of Items and Class Stems” in the List of Classes. For each record one would need to refer to the SuDoc entry in the body of the text of the List of Classes, from which is entered the title, issuing

agency/bureau, and the format.

Active/Rejected. This file consists of currently available items that were not selected by BML. Holdings for VCU and VSL were included in the notes field. From this file, items exclusively selected by either VCU or VSL were identified by entering the star symbol, after the format and selecting library, in the notes field (see Figure 4). It is from this file that items not selected by any of the participating depositories were identified by entering the letter 0, after the format, in the notes field (see Figure 5). Discontinued. BML chose to create a discontinued file from which to intitiate a weeding program. It seemed appropriate to begin a program of withdrawal from a list of items that had been deemed, for one reason or another, unworthy of continuation. GOVDOX software permits the user to retrieve such items by the issuing agency/bureau; therefore, the depository can

SuDoc: D 5.319: Item: $lJ TI: Gazetteers Date: OO/OO/OO Subject: DDMA Note: M:VCU:*

Figure 4: AcfivelKejecfed file: participating depository, followed by star symbol, in notes field

Automated item files 255

SuDoc: c55.5101

TI: Satellite Activities of NOAA Date: OO/OO/OO Subject: CNESS Note: 1’10

Item: 207-b-03

Figure 5: Arrive/Rejected file: letter 0, following format in nores field, indicating that no depositories select item.

identify agencies whose publications are likely to no longer serve the needs of the user community, and retrieve their discontinued items. In this way the depository can generate lists of candidates for withdrawal.

As noted, searching on the notes field provides data important for cooperative collection development. By simply searching on the letter 0 in the notes field of the Active Selected file, a listing of the items that only BML selects can quickly be produced. A search on VCU, followed by an asterisk, in the notes field of the Active Rejected file will yield all of VCU’s exclusive selections. The same can be done for VSL. To identify the items selected in common by the depositories one needs only to search for VCU1VSLIUR in the notes field of the Active Selected

file. Searching on the letter 0 in the notes field of the Active Rejected file will identify all of the items that none of the depositories select, thereby producing a list of candidates for selection.

In addition to serving as a powerful vehicle for cooperative collection development, an automated items file performs a number of useful functions for the library that implements such a device. A title search, for example, can quickly reveal an unwanted species of publication, such as telephone directories, and one can make the appropriate deletions.

Just as a title search can reveal unwanted publications in the Active file, it can also identify a desired class of publications in the Rejected file. For example, to strengthen the University of Richmond’s collection of annual reports to support courses in public administration, a title search in the Active Rejected file quickly produced a list of such reports and the necessary additions were made.

SEARCHABLE FIELDS AVAILABLE ON GOVDOX

(1) SuDoc (2) Item # (3) Title (4) Title Free-text (5) Subject (issuing agency) (6) Notes

Indexed Non-Indexed Indexed Non-Indexed Indexed Non-Index

Figure 6: Searchable fields on GOVDOX

256 J. WALTERS

Also useful is to search on issuing agency/bureau, moving from the Active Selected file to Active Rejected files, producing lists, including SuDoc number and title, of selected and rejected items, bureau by bureau.

CONCLUSION

The automated item file is an effective device for internal collection management. Unlike the card file, which fosters and perpetuates aimless growth, the automated file makes possible the controlled and purposeful development of depository collections. It provides the ability to make reasoned and considered selections and deletions, based not only on the knowledge gained about an institution’s collection, but also of the collections of participating depositories.

The automated item file also promotes cooperative collection development. By extending the coverage of item availability-without any one library having to fully shoulder the burden- depositories can better serve users as well as strengthen collections.

NOTES

1. Bruce Morton, “Items Record Management System: First Step in the Automation of Collection Development in Selected GPO Depository Libraries,” Government Publications Review 8A (No. 3, 1981): 185-96; Bruce Morton and J.R. Cox, “Cooperative Collection Development Between Selective U.S. Depository Libraries,” Government Publications Review 9 (May/June 1982): 221-29.

2. Mecklersoft, GOVDOX: A Documents Check-In System (Westport, CT: Mecklersoft, 1988).