Making the most of our libraries: Annex 2

Retrospective Conversion of Library Catalogues
in Institutions of Higher Education
in the United Kingdom

Report on a Focussed Consultation Group
and a survey of Opinions
conducted as part of this Project.

Prepared by

Information Management Associates

May 1995

Retrospective Conversion of Library Catalogues in Institutions of Higher Education in the United Kingdom : report on a Focussed Consultation Group and a survey of Opinions conducted as part of this Project. Prepared by Information Management Associates.

1. INTRODUCTION

Information Management Associates were approached by Philip Bryant in February 1995 and invited to consider conducting some qualitative research to supplement the larger quantitative research study for the Retrospective Conversion project. After initial discussion about setting up a pair of seminars for 'experts' and 'users', Information Management Associates were invited to facilitate a consultative group event for librarians interested in retrospective conversion and to carry out a small-scale survey amongst practitioners and users to gather opinions about some of the issues involved since they felt that this was the best way to gather the information. This report outlines the work done and summarises the main results.

2. THE SEMINAR

An invitation to attend a focussed consultation group event was issued over JANET in March 1995. The response was encouragingly high and the participants at the event had to be limited to eighteen. (The subsequent consultation questionnaire was sent to the other people who had expressed interest.) The event was held at the Isaac Newton Professional Development Centre, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, on Thursday 6th April. A list of the participants is appended (Appendix 1).

The event was facilitated by David Streatfield of IMA assisted by Graham Robertson of Bracken Associates. It was envisaged as consisting of four main elements :

1. a group activity aimed at locating retrospective conversion amongst the competing priorities of Higher Education Library Managers;

2. a structured brainstorming session to gather views about the main issues to be faced in planning and implementing a national retroconversion programme;

3. an opportunity for participants to make prepared statements about retroconversion; and

4. a general discussion about issues and priorities.

In the event, the first two elements in the programme proceeded as planned, but nobody wished to avail themselves of the opportunity to make a prepared statement and the general discussion led into a group activity in which participants considered the nature of a national programme and assessed the priorities for action in introducing a programme.

The initial activity (which was envisaged both as an 'ice-breaker' and as a means of sorting out priorities) consisted of a card-sort activity conducted in four groups. A set of 23 issues had been drawn up through discussions with Bernard Naylor, Philip Bryant and members of the Project Monitoring Group. At the event the four groups were asked to jettison all but nine of the issues or concerns in academic library management (the full list is shown as Appendix 2). They were then asked to rank the chosen items in descending order of importance in the form of a diamond, with one item on the top and fifth tiers, two on the second and fourth levels and three on the third tier. (This method of ranking items is based on the premise that it is relatively easy to identify the 'most' and 'least' important items within a set but that precise ranking of the items in between can be problematic.) The feedback concentrated on differences and similarities in the choices made by the four groups and on where retroconversion issues featured.

In the second activity, focussed on issues in planning and implementing a national retroconversion programme, the participants worked as two groups in generating a total of 98 topics and in prioritising them. The high priority issues were similar for the two groups, and these formed the basis for further plenary discussion. After lunch, there was some further general discussions of the lower placed priority items before further group consideration was given to setting up a national programme.

The results of this focussed consultation are outlined in sections 4 and 5 below.

3. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

The main issues emerging from the event were transmuted into 21 assertions about retroconversion. This process was based on the scoring of priorities at the event but took account of those issues that could usefully be incorporated into questionnaire format. (The resulting questionnaire is attached as Appendix 3.) These statements were sent to a selection of 16 librarians (including those who had not eventually been invited to the consultative event), users (consisting of 13 prominent academics and seven postgraduate researchers, as well as six medical researchers) and eight people with a commercial or organisational interest in retroconversion. Recipients were asked to agree or disagree with each statement by ticking one of an array of six boxes. Despite the fact that the questionnaires had to be distributed immediately before Easter for analysis at the beginning of May, a total of 33 responses were received (giving a response rate of 66%). Apart from the commercial and organisational respondents, of whom only four responded in time, all of the categories of recipients responded well.

A summary of the responses is given in section 6 below.

4. RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION VERSUS OTHER PRIORITIES

When asked to sort out the main priorities facing higher education libraries for the next two years by means of the card-sort activity, the four groups highlighted:

enhancement of the IT structure "because most operations depend on IT"

sustaining the current acquisitions programme*

securing funding*

coping with the rising demand for purchasing and the increased price of periodicals.

* These issues were added to the original set by groups on blank cards provided for that purpose.

Other major priorities included:

the pressure on resources for student-centred learning (linked to the issue of rising periodical prices)

cost of acquisitions

document delivery enhancement and improvement of current catalogues

the purchase of hard copy texts versus buying electronic publications (this was reported as a real issue by the British Library representative).

Hardly surprisingly, given the focus of the day and the interests of the representatives, retrospective conversion figured as a priority issue for all four groups, but not at the same levels. Two of the groups positioned this issue on the third tier (i.e. ranked between fourth and sixth in their priorities) and one of these groups linked the issue to enhancing use of collections; the third group positioned retrospective conversion in their fourth level and again made the link to enhancing collection use; the other group paired the issue in their fifth tier along with catalogue development.

In discussing their decisions, participants emphasised that although retrospective conversion has not always been seen as an important issue it is now becoming so. It was agreed that retroconversion should be seen as a question of unlocking resources not just a mechanistic process. Other points made were that the level of attention to retroconversion depends on how far the library has already gone and that retroconversion was not always seen as an issue by other library managers.

5. A NATIONAL RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION PROGRAMME?

5.1 The 'issues'

The two brainstorming groups generated a total of 98 issues (many of them overlapping) to be considered when planning and implementing a national retrospective conversion programme. They were then asked to prioritise these issues using a forced choice approach and the topics

were further refined in discussion. The main priorities were shared by both groups, with points allocated by participants as follows:

1 Resources - overt and covert costs 58

2 Objectives : what are we actually doing it for? 45

3 Priorities (national and local): what order? 42

4 Bibliographic standards and accessibility (to records and stocks) 27

The other issues identified by the participants have been grouped under general headings

below:

'Politics'

External pressure

Deals to be done

Public Relations

Mechanism for sharing and acquiring records

Impediments to inter-access of existing records

Involvement of 'owners' of the system and ownership of records 21

Sharing

Exchangeability

Unified database of records

Improved access to information

Enrichment of catalogues 19

Resources

Local staff issues

Space for staff

IT capacity 15

Targeting

Identifying libraries with rich collections

Database identification

Identifying areas for conversion

Identifying 'source libraries' to act as pilots

Foreign language items 18

Co-ordination

Co-ordination of effort

Overlap

Format reconciliation

Impact on existing system

The 'undermining' impact of electronic storage 10

Need for Definitions

'Programme'

'Retrospective conversion' 6

Time

Sensible time-scale

Is speed of implementing the programme important? 8

5.2 A national programme

The participants then worked in groups to decide what a national programme is and discussed the major issues and priorities in bringing it about. It was agreed that there is a real difference of approach when dealing with a national programme rather than reacting to local needs.

A national programme could be conceived as an umbrella under which the remaining work could be shared out, assuming that the objective was to have an accessible record somewhere of anything that people might want. One group defined the objectives of the national programme as:

to provide a timescale and framework

to get rid of card catalogues

to make rare and unique items available

to improve the accessibility of our total library resources

to create a national standard for catalogue records

They envisaged that a task group could be set up to:

identify places for targeting money

set spending priorities

negotiate a basis for accessing records

encourage sharing and 'trading' amongst participants.

A key question was whether there should be a single national database or whether emphasis should be on distributed but connected resources. A national database would unlock some of the more esoteric collections by providing signposts to their locations. Forthcoming developments in information technology might overcome this problem, if for instance, distributed databases could be set up to interact with each other automatically (through software agents) so that a "national database" concept might be achievable, even if it consisted of smaller units managed independently.

Various points about a national programme were made in the plenary discussions:

it was emphasised that the focus of the current project was bibliographic, although it was reported that the British Library will mount its own manuscript database and a sound archive in the autumn of 1995;

some delegates were prepared to reallocate funds to enable them to do work in support of a co-ordinated approach;

records could be paid for: the Council of Europe 1989 Recommendation states that catalogue records should be circulated unrestrictedly; but it does not say that these should be free;

the discussion returned time and again to resources, adequate space and staff motivation (customer concerns were only noted in relation to increasing pressure on library staff.);

different universities have different political frameworks and some universities might not want to disclose their special collections (it was noted that American universities tend to be more open - publicising their collections to attract academics);

there has been a high level working party between The British Library and CURL dealing with three areas:

National database

Preservation

Document supply.

At the end of the day participants were asked to offer their final thoughts. The main points are listed below:

it is not clear how we could avoid duplication of work locally without a national programme;

the programme should be about targeting resources inline with agreed objectives;

cost-effective record sharing is one of the keys to justifying the programme;

retroconversion is not a university problem only - it should involve the British Library and other major non-HE libraries;

basic criteria are needed for identifying priorities in implementing the programme;

'Garbage-in, garbage-out!' We should aim for acceptable bibliographical standards;

it is important to keep in touch with the university libraries that are doing work as part of the Follett programme;

we should focus on the best available practice.

6. THE SURVEY OF VIEWS

As already noted, 21 of the issues emerging from the event were rendered as propositions in a questionnaire and sent to 50 people. The 33 completed questionnaires were analysed by scoring each row of responses from plus 3 (agree strongly) to minus 3 (disagree strongly). Since one or, at most two, people had failed to respond to particular questions, averages were derived from the total scores for each of the 21 assertions. This refinement did not affect the rank order, so the mean scores have been omitted below. The assertions and associated scores are presented in rank order in table 1 with the most strongly supported propositions first.

Perhaps more important than the extent to which respondents supported the propositions offered was the amount of consensus shown. The strength of consensus is indicated in Table 1 by the various typefaces used as follows :

Strong consensus = 90%+ respondents ticked two adjacent boxes - bold type underlined

Moderate consensus = 90%+ respondents ticked three adjacent boxes or 80%+ ticked two adjacent boxes - bold type

Weaker consensus = 90%+ respondents ticked four adjacent boxes or 80%+ ticked three - normal type

Little consensus = 90%+ respondents ticked five adjacent boxes or 80 % ticked four - italic

[No consensus = responses spread fairly evenly across the boxes - brackets and italic]

Although the low numbers involved do not permit any systematic analysis of the difference between the responding groups, it may be of interest to note that :

the assertion that 'RCC will enable anyone to locate any University library holdings within the UK via an appropriate workstation within ten years' was more strongly supported by the four commercial and organisational respondents (ranked 1st) than by the other respondents (ranked 11th);

the librarians more strongly supported the idea that 'RCC is highly desirable because it will eliminate manual catalogues and provide a single point of access by computer' (ranked 9th) than did the academics (ranked 18th);

only the four commercial and organisational respondents collectively supported the notion that 'Libraries should be free to charge each other for access to their catalogue records' (ranked 8th by them compared with the overall ranking of 20th). It is tempting to see a vested interest showing here!

the academics were even more keen that 'any national RCC programme should encompass non-HE sector libraries' than were the librarians (ranking this =1st compared with 5th)

the academics were also more inclined to the view that 'a national RCC programme requires significant advances in the information technology infrastructure within Universities' than were the librarians, (ranking this 8th= compared with 19th) possibly because they were less aware of current IT possibilities.

Overall, most respondents were agreed about what a national retroconversion programme should concentrate on (recording unique/unusual publications and general publications and exploiting existing stock) as well as how it should fit into the wider picture (non-HE sector libraries, the British Library and European initiatives). There was also some accord around the need for government funding, agreements over collection access and the need for leadership (though not necessarily a willingness to accept a lead!).

However, the support for a parochial argument in favour of RCC and for various other justifications advanced for a programme was less general. As to the time scale, the relatively optimistic suggestions of five and ten years met a pessimistic response and, interestingly, there was little sympathy for the idea of libraries charging each other for catalogue access.

7. CONCLUSION

Although it would not be appropriate for the facilitators of the activities described above to usurp the role of the main project researchers in offering detailed conclusions, it is evident that there is substantial support for a national retrospective conversion programme. However, there do appear to be a variety of views about what form of leadership this programme should have; about a realistic timetable for completing the programme; and about how the participating libraries can be recompensed for the work involved or otherwise recoup some of the operational costs.

David Streatfield

Information Management Associates

May 1995

Table 1

Questionnaire propositions in rank order

	score
1. Recording unique publications for the benefit of researchers is very important.	89
2. Recording of unique/unusual publications to improve overall access to these items is very important.	84
3. Any National RCC programme should encompass non-HE sector libraries (e.g. National, Special and Major Public libraries).	82
4. Any National RCC programme should be closely co-ordinated with relevant British Library initiatives.	78
5. Recording of general publications for the benefit of library users is very important.	76
6. A major justification of RCC is that it enables Universities to benefit from large sums of money that they have already spent on existing bookstocks.	66
7. Significant central government funding is now essential to support a national RCC programme.	63
8. It is vital that any National RCC programme should take account of European initiatives.	61
9. A national RCC policy/lead body* is required to co-ordinate priorities and to target resources.	57
10. A National RCC programme will require agreements about access to collections.	56
11. RCC will enable anyone to locate any University library holdings within the UK via an appropriate workstation within ten years.	49
12. A national RCC lead body is required to negotiate national deals with commercial providers and to secure funding.	46
13. RCC is highly desirable because it will eliminate manual catalogues and provide a single point of access by computer.	36
14. The main benefit arising from RCC is to improve access to the stock of my own University library.	32
15. A major justification of RCC is that it helps to preserve existing library collections by spreading the impact of demand.	23
16. University libraries would welcome priorities for RCC being set by a national lead body/policy.*	21
17. [A national RCC programme requires significant advances in the information technology infrastructure within Universities.]	14
18. [ Humanities publications should be given priority over science publications in any National RCC programme.]	12
19. A national database incorporating all University library records will be in place within ten years.	11
20=. Libraries should be free to charge each other for access to their catalogue records.	- 49
20=. RCC of University libraries in the UK will be completed within five years (apart from 'windfall collections').	- 49

* Respondents were invited to indicate their preference at these points by striking out the other options. Less than half of the respondents did so and no clear preferences emerged.

ANNEXE 2 - Appendix 1

Participants in the Focussed Consultation Group

John Arfield, Loughborough University of Technology

Philip Bryant, University of Bath

Robert Butler, University of Essex Library

Marion Chadwick, London Guildhall University Library

Robin Davis, University of Stirling Library

Fred Friend, University College London Library

Tom Graham, J B Morrell Library, University of York

Henry Heaney, Glasgow University Library

Derek Leggett, British Library of Political and Economic Science

William Marsterson, Middlesex University Library

Michael McClaren-Turner, British Library

Bernard Naylor, Southampton University Library

Alasdair Paterson, University of Exeter Library

Graham Roe, Sheffield University Library

Hugh Taylor, Cambridge University Library

John Tuck, John Reynoldss University Library of Manchester

David Welding, Leicester University Library

Liz West, University of Northumbria at Newcastle Library

ANNEXE 2 - Appendix 2

Topics provided for the Card-Sort Activity

1. Refurbishment of the library

2. Enhancement of weak areas of stock

3. Enhancement of IT infrastructure for library users

4. Making better use of existing space, furniture and equipment

5. Responding to the rapid increase in the cost of periodicals

6. Coping with the rising demand for book purchasing (with greater student numbers)

7. Document delivery enhancement

8. Overlapping demand for electronic and print versions of publications

9. Longer opening hours and new patterns of library use

10. Pressure on resources through student-centred learning

11. Retrospective catalogue conversion

12. Cataloguing current acquisitions

13. Staff training in relation to student-centred learning and electronic searching

14. Pressures on library staff time imposed by the assessment of teaching quality

15. Increasing the capacity of libraries to find what enquirers want

16. Implications of SuperJanet

17. Reducing theft

18. Spiralling demands for photocopying

19. Need to link students and staff to particular courses in the library records

20. Enhancing the use of existing library collections (i.e. increasing the effect of money already spent)

21. Increasing the visibility of stock to users

22. Training users in library use

23. Information skills training for students

ANNEXE 2 - Appendix 3

NB: What follows is a copy of the questionnaire sent to 50 people in April 1995. The numbers indicate how many people ticked the boxes provided in the original version. 31 replies were received but in some instances one or two people did not respond to a particular question.

Retrospective catalogue conversion (RCC) is the process of converting manual catalogue records into machine-readable form so that they will be more readily accessible. So far, UK University libraries have converted about 10.5 million records without benefit of a national programme. It is estimated that there are another 28 million records yet to be converted.

1. RCC will enable anyone to locate any university library holdings within the UK via an appropriate workstation within ten years.

Agree strongly 12 5 10 4 0 1 disagree strongly

2. Recording unique publications for the benefit of researchers is very important.

Agree strongly 27 5 0 0 1 0 disagree strongly

3. Significant central government funding is now essential to support a national RCC programme.

Agree strongly 20 4 4 3 0 2 disagree strongly

4. A major justification of RCC is that it enables universities to benefit from large sums of money that they have already spent on existing bookstocks.

Agree strongly 17 6 7 2 1 0 disagree strongly

5. The main benefit arising from RCC is to improve access to the stock of my own university library.

Agree strongly 10 6 6 8 1 2 disagree strongly

6. A national RCC policy/lead body* is required to co-ordinate priorities and to target resources.

Agree strongly 16 6 6 2 2 1 disagree strongly

7. A national RCC lead body is required to negotiate national deals with commercial providers and to secure funding.

Agree strongly 12 10 4 1 2 3 disagree strongly

8. Recording of unique/unusual publications to improve overall access to these items is very important.

Agree strongly 23 5 5 0 0 0 disagree strongly

9. Recording of general publications for the benefit of library users is very important.

Agree strongly 18 9 5 1 0 0 disagree strongly

10. University libraries would welcome priorities for RCC being set by a national lead body/policy*.

Agree strongly 7 7 6 4 5 2 disagree strongly

11. RCC is highly desirable because it will eliminate manual catalogues and provide a single point of access by computer.

Agree strongly 15 4 5 0 2 6 disagree strongly

12. Humanities publications should be given priority over science publications in any national RCC programme.

Agree strongly 9 6 4 2 4 7 disagree strongly

13. It is vital that any national RCC programme should take account of European initiatives.

Agree strongly 16 7 5 4 1 0 disagree strongly

14. Libraries should be free to charge each other for access to their catalogue records.

Agree strongly 3 3 2 2 2 20 disagree strongly

15. Any national RCC programme should encompass non-HE sector libraries (e.g. national, special and major public libraries).

Agree strongly 23 7 1 2 0 0 disagree strongly

16. A national database incorporating all university library records will be in place within ten years.

Agree strongly 7 2 9 7 5 2 disagree strongly

17. A major justification of RCC is that it helps to preserve existing library collections by spreading the impact of demand.

Agree strongly 5 5 12 7 2 1 disagree strongly

18. RCC of university libraries in the UK will be completed within five years (apart from 'windfall collections').

Agree strongly 1 0 3 10 9 9 disagree strongly

19. A national RCC programme requires significant advances in the information technology infrastructure within universities.

Agree strongly 6 9 4 6 4 4 disagree strongly

20. A national RCC programme will require agreements about access to

collections.

Agree strongly 17 5 5 3 2 1 disagree strongly

21. Any national RCC programme should be closely co-ordinated with relevant

British Library initiatives.

Agree strongly 19 10 3 0 1 0 disagree strongly

Contents