A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF STATE-WIDE

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASES

STAN GARDNER, B.A., A.M.L.S.

APPROVED:

Major Professor

Committee Member

Committee Member

Committee Member

a

Committee Mem~

ean of - e Co lege of Library and Information
Sciences

Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of
Graduate Studies

~



Gardner, Stan, A Descriptive Study of Statewide

Bibliographic Databases. Doctor of Philosophy in Library

and Information Science, August, 1992, 360 pages, 24 tables,

2 figures, bibliography, 69 titles.

This dissertation has compiled information about

statewide bibliographic databases, their format, their cost,

the number of titles and records, how they are being used,

what kinds of libraries are using such databases in each

state, and the effectiveness of those databases.

General information about twenty-eight states'

bibliographic databases is included in this dissertation.

The users of thirteen states responded to a questionnaire,

surveying the effectiveness of the statewide database in

their state. The costs to the individual states varies from

zero, where all costs are covered by local funds or Library

Services and Construction Act fund, up to 4.4 million

dollars. Usage of interlibrary loan increase is detailed

and explained.

There has never been an evaluation of the effectiveness

of a statewide bibliographic database. This is a

descriptive study of statewide bibliographic databases. No

other such study appears in library and information science

indexes.



A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF STATEWIDE BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASES

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

University of North Texas in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Stan Gardner, B.A., A.M.L.S.

Denton, Texas

August, 1992



Copyright by

Stan Gardner

1992

iii



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not be possible without the support of my

wife Katherine G. Ellerton, my parents Mr. and Mrs. C.H.

Gardner, or my faculty advisor Dr. Herman Totten. My

appreciation to them for the help they have given me.

iv



TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES... ........

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Background Information
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study . -
Significance of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Scope ......... ........
Research Questions . . .

ENDNOTES ..................

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Alaska
Colorado . . . . .
Connecticut . . . -
Delaware
Georgia.........-.-
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana.....-.-..
Maine ..... . .
Maryland
Mississippi -
Missouri . -
Nebraska - -
Nevada
New Jersey -
North Dakota -
Ohio . - -0 0- -
Oklahoma 0 - - - -0
Oregon .-0 0 --
Pennsylvania -0a
Rhode Island ---
South Dakota -
Tennessee.......-..
Virginia
West Virginia - -
Wisconsin........
Regional Databases

ENDNOTES.............-.

ix

ix

.
-
-
-
.

-
.
.
.

-
-
.
.
.

-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

V

.
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
.

.
-
-
-
.
-

.
.
.

.
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
2
6
6
7
8
9
9

11

12
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
26
27

-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.

.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.

-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
.
-
-
-
-

-

.
.
.
.
.
-

-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-

-
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.

-

& -0 -a -0 -0 -0 -
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

- -0 - -0 - -0- . 0.



CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Title of Respondent (38); Type of
Library (39); Size of Collections (40);
Type of Uses of the Statewide database
(40); Amount of time spent daily on the
state-wide database (42); Amount of time
spent daily on ILL. (43); Staff using
database (44); Dedicated equipment (45);
Public Access? (45); Why Not Provide
Public Access? (46); Hardware Problems
(47); Software Problems (47); Training -
offered and attended (48); Training -
Adequate or need additional training?
(48); Importance / Quality / Usefulness
(49); Increases or decreases of service
(54); ILL's being verified using the
state-wide database (56); Methods of ILL
- before and after the state-wide
database (57); ILL volume prior to and
after the state-wide database (58);
Helpful features of database (59);
Improvements needed (60); Provides
needed information (61); Priority of
state-wide automation (62); Selected
comments from respondents (63)

State Libraries responses: . . . . . . . . . 64
Selected Responses of State Libraries
(65)

ENDNOTES.......-.-..-.... . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 68
Size of Libraries, Effect of Use of Statewide

Database.-............... . 69
Format of the Statewide Database ......... 70
Use of Statewide Databases by Libraries . . . 71
Variety of Uses of the Statewide Database . . 72
Communication Methods.. .-... . . . . . . . 73
Opinions on the Standard Features of Systems 74

vi



Effect of Statewide Database on Resource
Sharing . . . . . - - . -.-.-.-.-.-. -.. 75Strengths and Weaknesses of Statewide
Databases..........-.-.-.-.... 75Factors to Consider in Selecting a Statewide
Database Vendor..........-.-. 76

Significance of This Study........... 78
Recommendations for Further Study...........80

ENDNOTES .. ..........................-....
81

APPENDIX A: STATEWIDE BIBLIOGRAPHIC HOLDINGS DATABASE
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ... .-.....-......... 82

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONS ASKED IN SURVEY SENT TO STATE
LIBRARY AUTOMATION OFFICERS..........-... 88

APPENDIX C: USER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY STATE . 92Responses from Alaska ........-.-- ... .. .93
Responses from Connecticut.......-.-..... 105
Responses fromDelaware.- .. ....... --115
Responses from Iowa. ............... 125Responses from Maryland-.-......-..-........-.. 135Responses from Missouri.-.-......-....--.-.. 145Responses from Pennsylvania.......-.-...-.- 155Responses from North Dakota....-.-....--. .. 164
Responses from Ohio. ....... .. . . . .. . . 174Responses from South Dakota...-.-.-..-..... 185Responses from Tenn.. --.-.-.-.-.-.-...... 195Responses from Wisconsin.- ...-.-.... ----. . 206Responses from West Virginia .-.......... 216

APPENDIX D: RESPONSES FROM STATE LIBRARIES.----......226

APPENDIX E: VENDOR'S RESPONSE TO MISSOURI'S RFP.
AUTO-GRAPHICS, BRODART COMPANY, AND LIBRARY
CORPORATION . ................... 230
Proposal from Brodart Company................ 231Pricing from Brodart Company. ............ 262Proposal from Auto-Graphics..-.....-.-..... ... 265Pricing from Auto-Graphics........294
Proposal from Library Corporation .. . . . . . . 297Pricing for Library Corporation..--...... 319

APPENDIX F: EXAMPLE OF A COST ANALYSIS OF STATEWIDE
DATABASES BY FORMAT - MICROFICHE, CD-ROM, ON-LINE, AND OCLC........................322
Cost of State Database on Microfiche ......... 323

vii



Cost of State Database Online Using OCLC * .326Cost of State Database Online Using Brodart, Inc. 330
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . - - - - -. ------ 338

viii



LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1
TABLE 2

. Z% &J.LJJ z . .*

Table 3... . ..
TABLE 4.....
TABLE 5 .
TABLE 6 . s..
TABLE 7 .
TABLE 8 * .
TABLE 9 .
TABLE 10 * * .
TABLE11 ....
TABLE 12 *33*.
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TABLE 15 . . .
TABLE 16
TABLE 17
TABLE 18
TABLE 19 .
TABLE20
TABLE 21
TABLE 22
TABLE 23
TABLE 24 . . .
TABLE 25
Tables C26 to C48 .
Tables C49 to C70 .
Tables C71 to C93 .
Tables C94 to C116
Tables C117 to C139
Tables C140 to C161
Tables C162 to C183
Tables C184 to C206
Tables C207 to C229
Tables C230 to C252
Tables C253 to C275
Tables C276 to C298
Tables C299 to C321

. 0.

3 3 3 0 0 - - * 3 3 - 3 - - . 216

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Vendors of Library Catalogs on CD-ROM. 3

ix

. .

. .

. .

.
.
.

.

. .

. .
. .

0 0

*
'
'

*
*
*

*
*
*

*
'
*

*
*
*

*
'
*
*

'
'
*

*
*
*

*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*
'

*
*
'

*
*
'

*
*
'

'
*
*
'

*
'

* -
* *
' '
' '

-
*
*

*
*
'
*

'
-
*

'
*

*
'
*
*

'
'
*

*
-
-
-

'
-

-

-
*

'

-
*
'

'
-
*

*
*
*

'
*
'

-
*
'

*
*
'
*

*
'
'

*
*
-

-
-
'
-

'
-
*

*
*
-
- -
' '

'
-
*
*
*

-
'
*

'
-
*

'
*
*

-
*
*
'

- -
* *
' -

-
-
*

*
*
-
'

*
'

-
-
'

-
*
-
*

-
'
-
-

*
-
-

-
-
-

'
-
'

*
*
-

-
' '

-
*
-
-

-
*
-

-
-
-

-
-

-
-
-
'

-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
'
-

'
*
*
-
-

- -
- '
- -
- -
- -

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
.
-

-
-
-
'

-
'
*

*
-

-
'

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
.

-
-
-
-

-

38
39
40
40
42
43
44
45
45
46
47
47
48
48
49
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
93

105
115
125
135
145
155
164
174
185
195
206

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
.
.

.
'
.
'

*
*
.
-
-

*
*
-
-
-

-
-
'

-
'
*
*
-



CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

For several decades libraries have been concerned with
sharing resources between them. The primary method for
doing this has been Interlibrary Loan (ILL). In order to
borrow materials effectively, libraries need to know what
other libraries have. Many methods have been used to
identify materials, such as union lists between cooperating
libraries and compiled automated bibliographic databases
extending over political and geographical regions. Two
common forms of bibliographic databases are the On-line
Computer Library Center (OCLC) and a state-wide database
developed by individual states.

There has never been an evaluation of the effectiveness
of a state-wide bibliographic database prior to this study.
In fact, there has not been even a simple compilation of
state-wide bibliographic databases. There are no entries in
the library and information science indexes about states
that have developed state-wide bibliographicdatabases.

This study compiled information about state-wide
bibliographic databases, their format, their cost, how they

1



2

are being used, what kinds of libraries are using the

database in each state that has a state-wide database, and

asked users of those bibliographic databases if they were

effective. Appendix A and B contain copies of the

questionnaires used to gather this information. Appendix C

gives a compilation of the responses of the various state

libraries. Appendix D shows the responses of the

individual users of each state.

Background Information

During the past decade, many states have experimented

with the development of state-wide bibliographic databases.

A state-wide bibliographic database is defined as a file of

machine-readable bibliographic records that is a

comprehensive source of the bibliographic holdings of

libraries within the political and geographical boundaries

of a state. 1

Illinois and West Virginia started early with state-

wide bibliographic databases by creating interfacing on-line

systems. These databases included records from public,

college, and special libraries, and were accessible to users

in libraries and others with microcomputers and modems.

Eighteen states creating such state-wide bibliographic

holdings databases during the past few years have been

utilizing a more recently created format, that is, Compact



disc - Read Only Company 
CD~-PAC

Memory (CD-ROM) Auto-Graphics 
Impact

technology. 
Brodart 

LePac
Only eight Gaylord Co. 

SuperCat
vendors at this General Research Corp. LaserGuide
time offer CD-ROM Library Corp. Intelligent Catalog
public access Library Systems & Services LOANet
catalogs 2 or Marcive 

Marcive/PAC
Compact disc - Utlas Int. 

CD-CAT
Public Access Figure 1 Vendors of Library Catalogs on
Catalogs (CD-

PACs). However, Marcive and Utlas have never successfully
bid for a statewide database contract as reported by the
twenty-eight state libraries responding to the questionnaire
used in this study. Brodart, Inc. introduced the first CD-
PAC in the summer of 1985. Brodart's "LePac" system and
Auto-Graphics "Impact" are used most often, with seven
states using Brodart, and four states using Auto-Graphics,
out of the eighteen states that currently have CD-PACs.

Methods of providing access to a state-wide
bibliographic database include on-line systems, microforms,
and CD-ROM optical discs. Magnetic tape and magnetic disk
may be used in the future, but are not currently used by any

* Note: Gaylord and LSSI split and created two separateCD products in 1989. In 1991, Follett and LSSI contractedwith each other to develop and market LOANet.

3



4

state as a means of access to a state-wide bibliographic

database.

Microforms are considered the least desirable form of a

state-wide bibliographic database. They can provide the

same information at a fraction of the cost, but there is a

major disadvantage to it. There is a great deal to be

desired in the search capability of microforms. Microforms

are sequential in nature so that one has to go though many

pages in order to arrive at the specific page needed.

Microforms are an extension of printed catalogs, a user

physically has to handle the plastic film to find the

specific range in author, or title depending on how the

microform is printed. It is impossible to access multiple

records automatically by searching key terms.

On-line systems and CD-ROM share many of the same

advantages in retrieval of bibliographic information. On-

line systems have an advantage, in that information is

updated continually, not in batch mode over a period of

months. Illinois is an example of a state that has an

online system.

The major argument against using an on-line system is

cost, i.e. telecommunications, equipment, and personnel.

Part of this research studied the difference between formats

and showed the extent that cost factors play in states

selecting their delivery system. A secondary disadvantage

of an on-line system is that when the phone lines are down



5

or the main computer is down, there is no way to access the
database. CD-ROM systems do not have this disadvantage, the
user is able to go to another microcomputer if a problem
arises with the equipment.

The reduction of cost and the advance of technology has
made gigabite magnetic drives now feasible to consider as
another alternative to CD-ROM or on-line systems.

The major argument for using an on-line system is that
they are instantly accessible, when a change is made in the
database everyone can use the changed data instantly. Some
library directors and boards consider this to be a
disadvantage under some circumstances. In interlibrary loan,
many library boards do not want other libraries to borrow
new material. They feel that their money was spent to
purchase materials for their patrons and other libraries

should do the same.3

Statement of the Problem

No evaluation of state-wide bibliographic databases
exists. There is nothing in print on which format
(microforms, CD-ROM, on-line systems, etc.) were selected by
the states that have state-wide bibliographic databases, nor
the criteria for the selection of a specific format in each
state with a state-wide bibliographic database. Currently,
there is nothing published which lists the states that have



6

developed state-wide bibliographic databases.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to conduct an assessment

of state-wide bibliographic databases and to report the

impact of their usage based upon the information supplied

from a sample of the librarians in each state who use the

databases.

In order to accomplish this a description was made of

each state's database and its configuration. The

description consisted of the number of libraries included in

each state's database, the organization of the data, and the

types of data included. In addition, samples of inter-

library loan statistics were collected from each state that

uses such a system.

Significance of the Study

Many states feel that sharing resources is important,

and state-wide bibliographic databases are a way to

accomplish this goal. They feel that sharing resources is

important because in today's world it is almost impossible

to provide the information requested by a library's various

patrons due to the tremendous increase in information



7

available world wide. 4 An evaluation of present state-

wide bibliographic databases, since those states that are

creating a bibliographic database will expend great amounts

of money, time, and effort, is needed.

This dissertation is a bench-mark to those states

considering creating a state-wide bibliographic database.

Those states that currently have such a database will have

access to information about other state's bibliographic

databases. It can bring attention to aspects of the various

databases that may require reevaluation and it also can

become a planning tool for improvements. This could be used

as part of an interactive dialogue between the state library

and the individual libraries using the databases. Data

concerning the databases illustrates where perceived

problems exist, and could be used by public libraries and

the state libraries making decisions regarding the

development of state-wide bibliographic databases.

This study also included what some vendors of

bibliographic databases currently offer in the way of

services, backup, and sophistication of retrieval software.

Information regarding the impact of such a database on

library services in states currently using a state-wide

bibliographic database will be useful in determining what

formats other states may wish to pursue.



8

Limitations of the Study

This study will look only at those states that have

bibliographic records in a state-wide bibliographic

database. Each state that has a state-wide bibliographic

database was asked to supply a random list of library

addresses with a contact person who currently uses the

database. This random selection of libraries was sent a

survey form. The study was limited by the number, style,

and accuracy of the responses of those surveys returned.

Scope

The scope of this dissertation was intended to study

only those states that have developed a state-wide

bibliographic database and where publicly funded libraries

are eligible to participate in using the database.

Research Questions

In order to develop this dissertation, the author

addressed these research questions:

1. How are state-wide bibliographic databases used by

libraries in each state? (i.e. developing automation



9

for individual libraries, Interlibrary Loan, Optical

Public Access Catalogs (OPAC), Cataloging, etc.)

2. What is the impact of a state-wide bibliographic

database on resource sharing in each state?

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of a state-wide

bibliographic database?

4. What are the factors that state libraries should

consider when selecting a state-wide bibliographic

database vendor?

5. What is a way currently being used to select a vendor's

product?



ENDNOTES

1. Glazer, F. J. "That bibliographic highway in the sky." Library
Journal 110, no. 2 (February 1, 1985): 64-67.

2. Bills, L. G., and Helgerson, L. S. , "CD-ROM Public access
catalogs: Database creation and maintenance." Library Hi Tech 6,
no. 1 (1988) : 67-86.

3. Budd, John, Steven Zink, and Jeanne Voyles. "How Much Will It
Cost? Predictable Pricing of ILL Services: An Investigation and
a Proposal." RQ 31 (Fall 1991): 70-74.

4. Beaton, Barbara. "Interlibrary Loan Training and Continuing
Education Model Statement of Objectives." Q 31 (winter, 1991):
177-184.

10



CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A search of library literature relevant to the

development of state-wide bibliographic databases indicates

that little information has been published in this area.

Many studies have been published on interlibrary loan

systems and their effectiveness, but not relating to a

state-wide bibliographic database. A number of states have

looked at the possibilities of creating a machine readable

database of library holdings, usually within an overall plan

for library automation. An on-line search of the ERIC

database and a manual search of Library Literature resulted

in relevant articles and ERIC research reports. None of the

citations found in Dissertation Abstracts and only two items

in Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA)

pertained to state-wide or regional bibliographic databases.

Many states have considered developing a state-wide

bibliographic database in some form. Currently 28 states

have produced state-wide bibliographic databases, 18 of

those are on CD-ROM. In addition, a number of states have

regional databases on CD-ROM or are considering developing

11



12

state-wide bibliographic databases. Twelve states have on-

line state-wide bibliographic databases and six still use

microforms as their format of choice. The six states that

provide microforms also provide either on-line or CD-ROM

systems at an additional cost to the local library.** The

goals of most of these state-wide bibliographic database

projects include at least one of these three goals: (1) to

promote resource sharing among libraries within each state;

(2) to encourage use of automation on the local level; and

(3) to improve the accuracy of bibliographic records created

by the individual libraries. To determine the degree to

which these goals have been accomplished was a major part of

this researcher's effort.

The following include those states actively using

state-wide bibliographic databases and a brief comment on

each.

Alaska:

One of the six states that provide multi-format

databases, it can be accessed via CD-ROM, Microfiche, and

on-line. The vendor is WLN, all types of libraries use the

database, but expenses are shared between federal and local

funding sources. The database contains 2.2 million holding

records and approximately 1 million titles as of the spring

** State library survey forms compiled by Stan Gardner
1991 and 1992.



13

of 1992. The database was first accessible to libraries in

1985. The primary purpose of the database is resource

sharing, the secondary purpose is cataloging. There are 20

libraries contributing records to the statewide database.
1

Colorado:

In 1992 the Colorado legislators approved the creation

of the "Colorado SuperNet.1" A system of individual library

catalogs with a single menu that would be accessible on-line

via the InterNet. The number of records and titles that are

on this system have not yet been compiled, since it is just

now in development. This is an extension of the Colorado

Academic Research Library (CARL) system to all libraries in

Colorado.2

Connecticut:

A long planned project starting with CD-ROM test discs

in 1988 and 1989 to the 1990 system of 3 discs supplied by

Auto-Graphics, containing 2.04 million titles and 9.6

million holdings. Two hundred and seven libraries are in

this project, which has as its primary goal to provide a

public access catalog to all the libraries in Connecticut.
3

Delaware:

In October of 1990 the first CD-ROM disc was produced

and consisted of records from 50 public, academic, private



14

school, and special libraries. There were 386,153 titles on

the first disc produced by Brodart. The primary purpose of

this database is to improve interlibrary loan.
4

Georgia:

This is another of the six states that have multiple

formats. Serials are on-line through OCLC serials sub-

system. The rest of their database is on Microfiche. This

database includes 14 million holdings with 7.8 million

titles. Expenses are covered by a combination of federal

and local funds. The OCLC serials sub-system was first

established in 1988. The primary use of the database is for

resource sharing.5

Iowa:

Iowa produced the first state-wide bibliographic

database on CD-ROM. In 1986 the Iowa state library

distributed 2 CD-ROM discs containing their state-wide

bibliographic database. The vendor was a small company in

Colorado called Blue Bear, Inc.. The Iowa state library

originally had planned on developing a COM (Computer On

Microfiche) type database, but after talking to the Blue

Bear staff they decided on the CD-ROM format. The database

was developed as a resource sharing tool, and started with

only 32 libraries that had OCLC tapes available. Currently

the Iowa database contains 1,5 million records, almost 5



15

million holdings on three discs. The database was and is a

LSCA project. In 1991 the Iowa State Library distributed 
a

Request for Proposal, looking for a new vendor for the

production of the database, since Blue Bear has 
decided not

to continue in this type of business.
6 Library Corporation

was accepted as Iowa's vendor, and will distribute the new

database in the summer of 1992.7

Kansas:

In 1988 Brodart, Inc. produced the state-wide

bibliographic database using Library Service and

Construction Act (LSCA) funds. It is used as a tool to

support resource sharing (ILL), and consists of

approximately 2 million records on two discs.
8 It is

provided on both CD-ROM and on Microfiche to those libraries

who request it that way.
9

Louisiana:

Started in the 1960's as a Union List which did not

contain full bibliographic information, it developed into a

statewide database on microfilm. In 1987 LSSI produced the

database on 12" videodiscs, and in 1989 the system changed

to CD-ROM. There are 1.4 million titles, 4,685,721 holdings

on 2 discs, consisting of 53 public libraries, 3 academic

libraries, and the State library participating. The primary

goal is resource sharing, secondary goals include



16

verification of data, and cataloging of materials. Funding

consists of a combination of federal (LSCA), state, and

local moneys. 1 0

Maine:

Maine produced its first state-wide holdings catalog on

CD-ROM in December, 1988 using Auto-Graphics as the vendor.

Their three goals are: (a) to facilitate resource sharing;

(b) to assist libraries in converting their holdings to

machine-readable form by matching against MaineCat and (c)

to provide computer-based access to local holdings for a

library's own walk-in users (public access). MaineCat has

school, public and academic libraries involved. It includes

200 libraries, with 2.5 million holdings and 1.1 million

titles. Maine is unusual in the sense that this project has

used state funds completely, and no federal funds have been

allocated in either its creation or maintenance." In 1991

they published a RFP for a new vendor. Library Corporation

received the bid and will distribute the new database in

1992.

Maryland:

Like many states, Maryland had been working on a state-

wide bibliographic database using microfilm since 1975. In

1988 this database was converted to 2 CD-ROM discs using

Auto-Graphics software. They have also established an on-



17

line system. However, there are some major defects in the

on-line system, such as no Boolean searching. Currently

there are 135 public, academic, school and special libraries

contributing 2.6 million titles and 6.5 million plus

records. The primary goal of this database is to support

resource sharing (ILL) throughout the state.
12

Mississippi:

Started in 1979, the Mississippi Union Catalog

consisted of 40 public libraries using microfilm. In 1985

LSSI produced the database on 12" videodiscs, and in 1987

converted them to CD-ROM. There are currently 700,000

titles and 3 million plus holdings on a single disc, from

243 public libraries, the state library, other state

agencies, and serials holdings from all of the community

colleges in the state. The primary goal of the statewide

database is for resource sharing, a secondary use is

cataloging. Funding is shared between federal, state, and

local resources. A microform version of the statewide

database is still available upon request.
13

Missouri:

The idea for a state-wide bibliographic database in

Missouri was under consideration in the late 1970s. The

need for libraries to share their resources and to take

maximum advantage of computer and communications technology



18

led the Missouri State Library to commission a study to

investigate the possibilities. Published originally in

December 1978 and somewhat revised in January 1979, this

report focused on the plans to improve library service in

the state and to make it more feasible for libraries to

implement new technology. The number one priority

recommended was that Missouri "establish a state-wide

bibliographic database of library records." 14

In 1987 a contract was signed with Brodart, Inc. to

produce a CD-PAC of the machine-readable records available

from all types of libraries. The Missouri State Library

secured funding through the LSCA to furnish public libraries

throughout the state with the hardware and software to

create machine readable records of their collections using

the Bibliofile system. Brodart processed records from the

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) records, and other

proprietary systems already in existence. In October 1988

the CD-PAC was distributed to 216 Missouri libraries

participating in the project. The project goals were

twofold: first to encourage development of machine readable

records to promote local automation of library services and

secondly, to encourage interlibrary cooperation and resource

sharing. 15

Currently there are 3.5 million titles, and 9 million

holdings on four discs. Missouri has also produced three

additional discs. One contains the Union list of serials



19

and newspapers for Missouri libraries, the second is an

Author/Title index showing where that record can be found on

the original four master discs, and the third is a

supplemental disc produced six months after the original

master discs.16

Nebraska:

The on-line system used in Nebraska is OCLC, there are

4 million records loaded into the database, it is not known

how many of these are unique. One hundred and thirty-five

libraries use OCLC, and all of the cost is borne by the

local library.17

Nevada:

In 1988 Nevada contracted with General Research

Corporation to produce a state-wide bibliographic database

using "LaserGuide. " Over seventy libraries participated

including public, academic, and special libraries. The

startup database contained approximately 1.2 million

holdings. 18

New Jersey:

The state of New Jersey was considering the development

of state-wide bibliographic databases by 1980. The Computer

Application Task Force of New Jersey listed the "creation of

a state-wide bibliographic database and standards for



20

machine-readable records and the creation of a state-wide

union catalog" among a list of recommendations.19 Since

then some of the libraries have gone together to produce a

regional database on CD-ROM, but have not yet developed such

a database state-wide.

North Dakota:

Using the University system as the contractor, North

Dakota on-line users can also connect with South Dakota's

and Minnesota's databases. The software used is UNISYS/PAL,

the database contains 793,721 titles and 1,166,086 holding

records. Established in 1989, funding comes from a

combination of state and local moneys. The primary purpose

of the database is resource sharing. Twenty-two libraries

currently use the system.2 0

Ohio:

In November, 1990 the first CD-ROM disc consisted of

records from 24 public libraries and holding 343,055 titles

and 654,734 holding records. The vendor for the database is

Library Corporation. The primary goal in establishing this

state-wide bibliographic database is to provide expanded

resources for users through interlibrary loan. The Ohio

state library is selling the Ohio Shared Catalog CD-ROM for

$255.00 each.21 Ohio is also working on an on-line system

using the University of Miami in Oxford Ohio, as the hub of



21

the system. Currently (1992) they are planning on linking

thirteen university libraries, two private university

libraries, two medical college libraries and the state

library of Ohio. 22

Oklahoma:

In 1991 the Oklahoma State Legislature appropriated

$350,000.00 to the Oklahoma Department of Libraries to

administer a CD-ROM bibliographic catalog project. The

target date for completion of the first CD-ROM disc is

spring, 1992. It is expected to combine bibliographic

catalogs of approximately 300 public, school, academic and

special libraries. Projections show that the disc(s) should

contain approximately 7 million records.23

Oregon:

The statewide database only contains serials holdings

information. 24

Pennsylvania:

In 1984 they used LSCA funding to start the development

of a state-wide bibliographic database. State funding

continued the project after the second year, the project was

designed to provide a Public Access Catalog, not just a

reference tool; and finally, the database includes all

libraries, public, academic, special and school libraries.



22

All records in the database were built directly from shelf

list cards. The first CD-PAC was distributed in

Pennsylvania in the fall of 1986. There are 1,050 libraries

participating in the statewide database which contains 2.6

million titles and 12.8 million holding records. Brodart,

Inc. is the vendor. 25

Rhode Island:

There are 45 libraries that provide the basis of

records in the Rhode Island state-wide bibliographic

database. The first CD-ROM database was delivered in July,

1990; it now has 367,562 titles, and 1.3 million holdings.

This project is funded by a local private foundation. There

is also an on-line version of the database accessible to

those libraries that wish to use it. The primary purpose of

the database is to provide public access catalogs to

participating libraries. Auto-Graphics is the vendor for

the CD-ROM database. 26

South Dakota:

Established in 1987, this on-line database uses the

UNISYS/PAL's software system. There are 184 libraries using

the system, which contains 1.1 million titles and 2 million

records. The cost of the project is shared between federal,

state, and local resources. 27



23

Tennessee:

In 1989, the Tennessee State Library and Archives began

the process of developing TELINET, a state-wide library

database. TELINET currently includes records of the

bibliographic holdings of the State Library and Archives,

the Public Library of Nashville and Davidson County, the

Knox County Public Library, the Chattanooga/Hamilton County

Library, the Memphis/Shelby County Library and Information

Center, the Tennessee Union List of Serials and the multi-

county regional libraries in the state. This encompasses

1.25 million titles on two CD-ROM discs and uses Auto-

Graphics as the vendor. The main purpose of the system is

for resource sharing (ILL). It is paid for using LSCA

funds.28

Virginia:

The state library of Virginia produced its first CD-ROM

state-wide bibliographic database in 1988. Currently this

database contains 4 million records, and has used Brodart's

LePac software in the past. The Virginia state library is

now dropping its CD-ROM version of the database and

developing an on-line database using its own computer and

the Virginia Tech Library System (VTLS).29

West Virginia:

The VTLS on-line database is used by 111 libraries of



24

all types and contains 1.3 million titles and 3 million

records. Funding comes from a combination of federal,

state, and local moneys. It was first started in 1983, and

has had very little upgrading since then.30

Wisconsin:

In 1983 the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,

Division of Library Services, started the Wisconsin Catalog

(WISCAT) as a project to develop a state-wide resource

sharing tool and a state-wide bibliographic database. At

first, WISCAT was a microfiche catalog; in 1987 a

recommendation of the state's Council on Library and Network

Development was to phase out production of the microfiche

format and produce a CD-ROM database. At that time an

online system was considered, but funding required to

maintain such a database and access to it was not considered

feasible. Currently WISCAT has 1000 libraries involved,

including public, academic, school and special libraries.

There are 4.15 million titles and 21 million holdings

included on the database, located on 5 different CD-ROM

discs. 3 1 The vendor producing the database and retrieval

software is Brodart. 3 2

Regional Databases:

Portions of California, Washington, Montana, and Idaho

have developed regional databases, but not individual state-



25

wide database. WLN provides both a regional CD-ROM database

and an on-line database for libraries in Washington, Alaska,

Montana, 33 and Idaho. The WLN database contains 435

libraries, 3.3 million holdings, 1.3 million titles and is

housed on 4 CD-ROMs. LaserCat, WLN's retrieval software is

primarily concerned with providing resource sharing for

regional libraries.3 4



ENDNOTES

1. Williams, Lynne, Automation Librarian, Alaska State Library,
Letter to (Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo] November, 1991.

2. Fayad, Susan, Senior Consultant, Network Development, Colorado
State Library, phone interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City,
Mo], February, 1992.

3. Uricchio, William, Michelle Duffy and Roberta Depp. "From

Amoeba to ReQuest: A history and case study of Connecticut's CD-ROM
based statewide database." Library Hi-Tech 8, No. 2 (1990): 7-21.

4. Sloan, Tom W., Deputy Director, Delaware Division of

Libraries, Letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO], October,
1990.

5. Ostendorf, JoEllen, Interlibrary Cooperation, Division of
Public Library Services for the State of Georgia, phone interview
[with Stan Gardner, jefferson City, Mo] March, 1992.

6. Cates, Dan, Network Coordinator, Iowa State Library, phone
interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], April 25, 1991.

7. Cates, Dan, Network Coordinator, Iowa State Library, phone
interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], March, 1992.

8. Moeller, Ronda, Coordinator Kansas Union Catalog, Kansas State
Library, phone interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo],
March 21, 1991.

9. Moeller, Ronda, Coordinator Kansas Union Catalog, Kansas State
Library, phone interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo],
February, 1992.

10. Ferguson, Bobby, Louisiana State Library, Phone Interview
[with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO], August 7, 1991.

11. Beiser, Karl, Library Systems Coordinator, Maine Department
of Educational and Cultural Services, Letter to [Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, MO], August 10, 1990.

12. Smith, Barbara G., Chief, State Library Network and
Information Services Section of the Maryland State Department of
Education, Division of Library Development and Services, Letter to
[Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO], September 8, 1990.

26



27

13. Smith, Sharman, Director of Library Services, Mississippi
Library Commission, Phone Interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson
City, MO], August 7, 1991.

14. Becker, J., and Hayes, R. M. A Statewide data base of
bibliographic records for Missouri libraries. (Los Angeles: Becker
and Hayes, 1979), 56.

15. Missouri State Library, records and files dated from 1987 to
1991.

16. Missouri State Library. Unpublished papers and reports,
Spring, 1992.

17. Mundell, Jacqueline, Network Services Librarian, Nebraska
Library Commission, Survey form from Stan Gardner, completed and
returned December, 1991.

18. "Nevada installs CD-ROM catalog." Wilson Library Bulletin 62
no. 3, (1988): 14.

19. New Jersey Computer Applications Task Force. A report of the
Computer Applications Task Force. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State
library, (1980), ERIC, 234 766.

20. Slater, Frank, Librarian, North Dakota State Library, Survey
form from Stan Gardner, completed and returned December, 1991.

21. Ohio State Library. "Ohio Shared Catalog CD-ROM Available."
The State Library of Ohio News. 249, no. 7 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State Library, March, 1991).

22. Sessions, Judith Hwa-Wei Lee, and Stacey Kimmel "OhioLink:
Technology and Teamwork Transforming Ohio Libraries" Wilson
Library Bulletin, June 1992, pg. 43-45.

23.ODL Source: A newsletter published by the Oklahoma Department of
Libraries Volume XVI numbers 7 & 8, July/August, 1991, page 6.

24. Scheppke, Jim, State Data Coordinator, Oregon State Library,
phone interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo] March 1992.

25. Goodlin, Margaret, School Library and Educational Media
Supervisor, State Library of Pennsylvania, Letter to [Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, MO], August 14, 1990.

26. Frechette, Dorothy B., Deputy Director, Rhode Island
Department of State Library Services, Letter to [Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, MO], August 10, 1990.



28

28. Herrick, Jacci, Information Services Coordinator, Tennessee
State Library, Letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO],
October 4th, 1990.

29. Wilson, Ashby, Director of Automated Systems and Networking
Division of the Virginia State Library and Archives, phone
interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO] April, 1991.

30. Prosser, Judith, Interlibrary Cooperation Librarian, West
Virginia Library Commission, Survey form from Stan Gardner,
completed and returned December, 1991.

31. Drew, Sally, Director, Bureau for Interlibrary Loan &
Resource Sharing, Wisconsin State Library, Letter to [Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, MO], August, 1990.

32. Wisconsin Council on Library and Network Development.
Automating Wisconsin Libraries. (Madison, WI: Wisconsin State
Department of Public Instruction, Division of Library Services,
1987), ERIC, ED 922 479.

33. Staffeldt, Darlene, Information Resources Director, Montana
State Library, Letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO],
September 11, 1990.

34. Griffin, David, Information Officer, Western Library Network,
Letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, MO], August 24, 1990.



CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Data was gathered in two ways. First, a survey form

was send to all 50 state libraries, with a phone interview

of State Library's Automation Officer in states that have

reported having a state-wide bibliographic database.

Secondly, a survey was sent to approximately 25% of the

libraries in each state that use the state-wide

bibliographic database. Seven hundred and fifty surveys

were sent. These libraries were randomly selected by

individual state libraries in their state. Seventeen state

libraries responded to the survey form.

The state library is the coordinator of the state-wide

bibliographic database, and is usually the agency that pays

for developing and maintaining most statewide databases. In
addition each state library maintains the files, the

"Request for Bid" used to select the vendor, and data on the

individual libraries (circulation, collection, population,

ILL transactions, staff, etc. of each library) which uses

the state-wide database.

The survey was send randomly to 25% of the libraries in
each state that participates in a state-wide bibliographic

29



30

database. The addresses of these libraries were requested

from each individual state library during the phone

interview, and by a follow up letter. By surveying 25% of

each state's libraries involved in a state-wide

bibliographic database, the proportions represented should

have been equal. However, due to the responses, some of the

smaller states had a higher representation than larger

states. Each survey form was marked with a code to identify

the state and type of library of the respondent.

Instrumentation

The research prepared a questionnaire addressing the

general research questions identified in Chapter 1. The

questionnaires were printed on pastel colored paper. (There

has been research that supports the idea that pastel colored

questionnaires receive a higher response rate than those on

plain white paper.)1 The survey instrument was first pilot

tested on selected libraries of differing types within

Missouri and revisions were made before being distributed.

Data Collection

This researcher used both a survey instrument and a

phone interview with each state library automation officer,



31

as the primary means of collecting data. Secondary 
sources

of data included reports and files developed or generated by

individual state libraries. A third source of data 
came

from library reference tools.

Analysis of Data

Surveying 25% of libraries participating in use of a

state-wide database randomly selected, provided the pattern

of basic use. In addition, by using reports compiled by

state libraries and comparing past reports to current data,

the information obtained was used to develop a database of

changes in patterns of usage and resources since the

beginning of the state-wide bibliographic database in 
each

state. Other data that was gathered by the survey

instrument are: type of library; size of library

collection; average daily use of the state-wide database in

minutes; type of staff using the state-wide database; method

of inter-library loan request (i.e., mail, OCLC, ALANET,

state, local or regional library networks, telephone, FAX,

etc.); number of incoming and outgoing inter-library loan

requests before and after implementation of the state-wide

database. Appendix A contains a sample of the survey form

to individual libraries and Appendix B contains a list of

the questions each State Library's Automation Officer was

asked. Appendix C contains a compilation of each state



32

library's report, and Appendix D contains the responses 
of

the users from the survey found in Appendix A.

Definition of Terms

In order to be consistent and to avoid a conflict of

definitions, the following terms are defined.

ALANET: A telecommunications network operated by the

American Library Association. This ceased to exist as

of February, 1992.

CD-PAC: Compact disc - Public Access Catalog, a catalog

containing bibliographic data of one or more libraries

on CD-ROM.

CD-ROM: Compact disc - Read Only Memory, an information

storage device in which information is stored digitally

on a laser optical disk, and decoded with software

through a computer.

Interlibrary Loan: A request from one library to another

library to provide a particular item, or photocopy.

OPAC Online Public Access Catalog - A computer based library

catalog that allows users to access bibliographic

information by themselves via computer terminals.
2

OCLC On-Line Computer Library Center. OCLC has become the

single largest bibliographic database in the U.S.

offering bibliographic services to libraries. It is



33

normally considered as the primary cataloging tool, or

the interlibrary loan (Group Access) communications

tool for libraries.

Resources: The collections, staff, and facilities available

to a library. When speaking of sharing Resources, it

usually refers to materials in the collection, that

could be loaned to another library.

State Library: The Library designated by each State

Government to disseminate and regulate Library Services

and Construction Act funds. Most state libraries also

coordinate state-wide library activities, provide

specialized library service to state government and

provide other services based upon the needs of that

state.

State-wide bibliographic database: A file of machine

readable bibliographic records which is intended to be

a comprehensive source of the bibliographic holdings of

libraries within a state.



ENDNOTES

1. Borg, W.E., and M. D. Gall. Educational research: An

introduction. 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1983), 422.

2. Berger, Carol A.
for Non-Librarians.
Company. 01990.

Library Lingo: A Glossary of Library Terms

2nd Edition. Wheaton, Ill: C. Berger and

34



CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Response

Questionnaires were mailed to 750 libraries in 
15

states based on the mailing lists provided by each state

library. This is approximately 25% of the libraries 
that

use the statewide database in each state.

A total of 325 questionnaires were returned,

representing a 43% return. Thirty six of those returned

were marked "do not use" or " do not wish to respond."

These were not included in the analysis. Libraries in four

states did not return a large enough number to be considered

valid. There were only one or two responses which did not

reflect the users of a state-wide database for the entire

state. This resulted in a 38% response rate. There were

sufficient responses from 13 states to be considered valid,

where the response was 10% or more of the surveys send out.

Due to the number or surveys returned, a follow up letter

was not sent to those libraries not responding.



36

The questionnaire was completed by personnel with 16

different job titles. Some individuals did not respond to

this question (1%), and some put their name instead of a

title (9%). The largest number of the respondents

identified themselves as "Librarian" or "Director", 51% of

the total. "Interlibrary Loan Librarians" or "Assistant

ILL" completed 6% of the questionnaires and "Reference

Librarians" submitted responses for 8%. Other personnel

completing questionnaires included Media Specialist (4%),

Assistant Librarians (7%), Technical Services Librarians

(4%), Adult Services Librarians (5%), and others as

indicated in Table 1.

Because some questions were not completed by all of the

respondents, the analysis of each question was calculated

using the total number of responses for that question.

Therefore, the total number of responses will vary from

question to question or from table to table. Some states

had CD-ROM databases, some had Microfiche, and some were on-

line. Some states had two or even three of these formats

being used at the same time. This also caused a varied

response to the questionnaire.

The individual states' responses can be found in

Appendix D.



37

TABLE 1

Title of Respondent

TitLe: n %

Assistant -Associate Director_ 19._.

Assistant ILL 4 1%

Bibliographic Specialist 2 1%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 3 1%

Coordinator Adult Services 13 5%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 147 51%

Extension Librarian 1 0%

Head, Collection DeveLopment 1 0%

Head, Reference Services 6 2%

Head, TechnicaL Services, Cataloging 11 4%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 15 5%

Library Clerk 2 1%

Library Tech 2 1%

Media SpeciaList, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 10 4%

Name if individual rather than titLe 26 9%

Reference Librarian 18 6%

System Operator 2 1%

No Response 4 1%

286 100%



38

Tables 2 and 3 indicate the total response to the

questionnaire by type of library and size of library

collection.

TABLE 2

Type of Library

Type Number Percentage

Public 130 45%

Academic 90 31%

School 48 17%

Special 21 7%

Totals: 289 100%

The largest number of respondents were from public

libraries and represented 45% of the total. Academic

libraries were second in number of responses with 31% of the

total. In many states school and special libraries are not

included among statewide database users. However in this

survey, schools represented 17% of the respondents, while

special libraries accounted for 7% of all respondents. The

school libraries from Pennsylvania skew the representation

nationwide, but that is simply because not many other states

include school libraries in the state-wide bibliographic

databases.



39

Table 3

Size of Collections

Collections: n %

Under 25,000 88 30%

25,001 - 50,000 74 26%

50,001 - 100,000 47 16%

100,001 - 250,000 45 16%

Over 250,000 27 9%

Unknown size 8 3%

Total 289 100%

Libraries with collections under 25,000 volumes

accounted for almost one-third of the respondents. The

responses from libraries with less than 50,000 volumes

accounted for 56% of the respondents, while those libraries

with collections over 250,000 volumes made up only 9% of the

total respondents.

TABLE 4

Type of Uses of the Statewide database

[Description Number %

Interlibrary loan 289 39.6%

Public Access 107 14.7%

Backup 55 7_._5%

Cataloging / 175 24.0%
Acquisitions

Collection 84 11.5%
Development

Other 19 2.6%

729 99.9%



40

Question 4 of the survey asked the respondents 
to check

all of the various ways in which they were using the

statewide database. Five choices were given and a 
sixth was

open ended so that the respondents could 
enter any other use

for the database. Table 4 illustrates the responses.

As one would expect of a statewide database designed 
to

encourage resource sharing, the primary use of the statewide

database was for interlibrary loan usage (40%). Two-hundred

and eighty-nine of the respondents use the database for

interlibrary loan purposes. More than 24% of the users

verify cataloging or acquisitions data with the database.

Fifteen percent of the users use the database as a public

access catalog. Just over 11% of the users view the

database as an aid to collection development. Two percent

of the users responded in the other category. Indicating

that the database was used as a reference tool for the

public, students, and faculty to find what other materials

were available through out the state.



41

TABLE 5

Amount of time spent daily on the state-wide
database

Statewide Database

:Mnutes n %

0or no response 38 13%

Less than 10 18 6%

10 tol19 27 9%

20 to 29 16 5%

30 - 44 45 15%

45 -59 6 2%

60 - 119 42 14%

120 - 179 31 11%

180 - 239 20 7%

240-299 8 
3%

300 + 36 12%

Other 5 2%

TotaL 292 ] 99%
Thirty-eight libraries did not respond to question

number 5. Eighteen libraries used the statewide database

for less than 10 minutes daily, 27 from 10 to 19 minutes

daily, 16 from 20 to 29 minutes, 45 for 30 to 44 minutes, 6

for 45 to 59 minutes, 42 for 60 to 119 minutes, 31 for 120

to 179 minutes, 20 for 180 to 239 minutes, 8 for 240 to 299

minutes, and :36 indicated they used the database for over

300 minutes a day. Some of these indicated that their on-

line system was available via dial up access 24 hours a day.

In replying to question number 6, the least amount of

time reported was twice a month. Forty users indicated that

the database was being used more than five hours a day.



42

Forty users did not respond. Seventeen percent used the

database for an hour each day.

TABLE 6

Amount of time spent daily on ILL.

Interlibrary loan

Minutes n %

o or no response 40 13.9%

Less than 10 11 3.8%

10 to 19 19 6.6%

20 to 29 14 4.9%

30 - 44 35 12.2%

45 - 59 9 3.1%

60 - 119 50 17.4%

120 - 179 35 12.2%

180 - 239 13 4.5%

240 - 299 18 6.3%

300 + 40 13.9%

Other 4 1.4%

Total. 288 100.2%



43

TABLE 7

Staff using database

Staff n %

Interlibrary Loan 219 20.3%

Reference 532 49.4%

Technical Services 115 10.7%

Director 155 14.4%

Extension Services staff 20 1.9%

Other 33 3.1%

No Response 4 0...4.%_

TotaL 11078 100.2%

Table 7 profiles the personnel who use the statewide

database. Multiple answers were common from the

respondents, which is why there are 1,078 separate entries.

It was to be expected that from databases designed to

facilitate interlibrary loan, those personnel who would most

frequently be reported as users would be interlibrary loan

staff. However, this did not hold true. Reference staff

was 49% of the use, versus 20% for interlibrary loan staff.

This is followed by library directors (14%),, and technical

services staff (10%). Among other personnel listed were

students, faculty, and secretaries. Extension services

staff used the databases less than 2% of the time.



44

TABLE 8

Dedicated equipment

Responses n

No response 11 3.8%

Yes 189 65.9%

No 87 30.3%

TotaL 287 100.0%

Eleven libraries did not respond to question number 8,

while 66% indicated "yes" the work station was dedicated to

the statewide database. Thirty percent replied that they

used the equipment for other purposes besides the statewide

database.

TABLE 9

Public Access?

Responses n %

No response 3 1.0%

Yes 143 49.5%

No 14:3 49.5%

Total 289 100.0%

Question 9 asked if the public had access to the

statewide database. Three libraries did not respond, 143

replied that they didn't, and 143 replied that the public

did have access to the statewide database.

When asked why they didn't allow the public to use the

statewide database, 56% indicated that they didn't have



45

enough equipment, 24% said that they didn't have room for

public terminals, and 12% indicated that the database was

available for staff only. This is reflected by individual

states like Ohio, where the libraries have to pay for their

CD-ROM discs. Also, some states, especially states with on-

line systems, indicated that the software was not user

friendly and patrons could not use the database without a

librarian assisting them in its use.

TABLE 10

WhyNotProvidePublicAccess?

Responses n %

No Interest 3 2.4%

No equipment 70 56.0%

Difficulty of use 3 2.4%

Staff use only 15 12.0%

No Room 31 24.8%

Microfiche only 1 0.8%

Used as a toy 1 0.8%

No CD-ROM extensions 1 0.8%

TotaL 125 100.0%

Equipment failure has not been a major problem, only

14% indicated that they had equipment problems. Most of

those failures were communications problems for on-line

systems, or disk failures for CD-ROM systems. Some of the-

"equipment" problems were really lack of trained staff

knowing how to set up and operate the database.



46

TABLE 11

Hardware Problems

-Responses Tn %
No response 9 3%
Yes 41

No 237 83%
Total 287-100%

Of the 14% who had problems with software, some were

actually hardware related problems, some didn't have the

staff with computer skills to set up and operate the

database, several wanted to do things that their software

wasn't programmed to do, and some were related to not

understanding the manuals and help screens. One respondents

indicated that they were never able to put the microfiche in

the correct way to be able to read it.

TABLE 12

____________ Software Problems

Responses n

No response 13 4%
Yes 47 14%
No 222 65%
Not Applicable 59 17%
Total 341 100%

Three states did not offer statewide training, but some

of the users received training. The respondents in those

states did not explain how they received training. Even in



47

those states that did offer training, time has passed since

it was offered, and new people have taken jobs without

having had access to that training.

TABLE 13

Training - offered and attended

Responses n - n -
State Attended

Training

No response 8 7 2%

Yes 245 237 83%
No _53 42 15%
Total 306 286 100%

In question 15, (Table 14) over 25% indicated that they

needed additional training in order to make effective use of

the statewide database. Appendix D has a break down of the

individual state's responses.

TABLE 14

Responses

No response

Yes

No

Total

Training - Adequate or need additional training?

n - Adequate training % n - need
Training

51 18% 9

214 74% 73

23 8% 206

288 100% 288

%

3%

25%

72%

100%
I

.6mm



48

Question # & Descriptor

16. Browse - Author,
Title, or Subject
Searches.

17. Express - Advanced
LeveL of searching.

18. BooLean

19. Keyword

20. WiLdcard

21. Ease of use -
searching

22. Speed

23. Directions

24. Manual

25. Screens

26. Changing Discs

Total # per category

Average Percentage of
each category

Average of each
category

Imp

76

26%

77

27%

35

12%

75

26%

36

13%

69

24%

40

14%

68

24%

33

12%

67

23%

24

8%

600

19%

55

TABLE 15

ortance / Quality / Usefulness
1 ExcetLent, 5 = Poor

S 1 31 4 NR Totals
Across

94

32%

79

28%-

59-

20%

64

22%

47

17%

119

42%

72

25%

99

34%

65

23%

109

38%

60

21%

867

27%

79

64

22%

61

22%

70

24%

74

26%

73

26%

61

22%

75

26%

78

27%

100

35%

81

28%

93

32%

830

26%

75

19

7%

14

14 - 16 4
5%

37

13%

25

9%

24

8%

11

4%

52

18%

21

7%

27

10%

10

3%

18

6%j

258

8%

23

16

6%

16

6%

23.

8%

16.

6%

26

9%

9

3%

23

8%

9

3%

22

8%
5

2%

16

6%

181

6%

16

21

7%

35

12%

64

22%

32

11%

77

27%

14

5%

26

9%

12

4%

37

13%

16

6%

79

27%

413

13%

38 -
38

100%

282

100%

288

99%

286

100%

283

100%

283

100%

288
100%

287

99%

284

101%

288

100%

290

100%

286

99%

JI

290

-

mmmmw -Ww JL-a-MEMN-M-MM. -M-00

I

I1q.

j

I

mlw w

4

I

I

I

I



49

Almost all of the CD-ROM databases have at least two

modes of searching. These terms are from Brodarts LePac

software for the standard (Browse) and advanced (Express)

search modes, since Brodart has the seven largest statewide

database contracts. Browse searching allows a single search

by author, title, or subject much like a card catalog

searching. The Express mode, a somewhat more sophisticated

method of searching, permitting the user to search multiple

fields simultaneously.

Keyword searching is available using the "Anyword"

field and both Boolean logic and truncated searches may be

performed. Because many users search in the Express Mode

and yet never utilize these specialized search strategies,

questions 18, 19, and 20 addressed each feature separately.

Some on-line systems like Maryland's, have no Boolean logic

searching available.

Eighty percent of the respondents rated the Browse

search mode as average or above average. Seventy-seven

percent rated the Express search mode as average or above

average.

Boolean searching is performed in the LePac system

using the Express Mode. A string of terms in a search field

assumes the "and" logic should be applied. Terms inserted

within parenthesis marks are searched with "or" logic.

Terms entered with a tilde (~) between words are searched

with "not" logic. Question 18 asked the users to rate the



50

Boolean search capabilities of their Statewide database.

Twenty-two percent of the users did not respond to this

question. The significant difference in the lower response

rate on Boolean searching suggests that a substantial number

of users are unfamiliar with the Boolean search logic and

therefore, do not use this search strategy. However, as

mentioned before, some databases do not even offer Boolean

searching as an option. Several users asked "what is

Boolean" on their surveys. It appears that with 22% not

responding to this question that additional training is

badly needed in this area.

Of those who use Boolean logic, 24% rated their

software as average, and 32% rated their software above

average or excellent. Twenty-one percent rated their

software as below average or poor.

Question 19 required the respondent to assess the

"Keyword" search strategically. Seventy-four considered it

average or above average, 15% considered it below average or

poor, while 11% did not respond to the question.

Question 20 asked for assessment of the "Wildcard" or

"Truncated" search strategy. With LePac this requires the

user to insert an asterisk (*) to the right of a minimum of

the first three letters of a search term. All terms with

the corresponding first three letters are retrieved. To

perform an embedded character truncated search, the question

mark (?) is inserted within a search term. A question mark



51

may be inserted for each unknown letter of the term. For

example, the search for wom?n will locate both "woman" and

"women." Seventy-seven users did not respond to this

question. This suggests, as in Boolean searching that they

are unfamiliar with the truncated search strategies and have

not utilized the Reference Manual for self-learning of these

capabilities of the system. Fifty-six percent of those who

did rate the truncated search strategy considered it

average, above average, or excellent.

Because approximately one-fourth of the users did not

respond to these search strategies, it may be deduced that

these are areas requiring additional instruction to the user

so that the search capabilities of the statewide database

are used to the maximum advantage.

Question 21 asked about the general ease of searching

of the database. Eighty-four percent considered the

database easy to use. Since this compares very closely to

the percentage that have had training and feel that they

don't need any additional training, it can be deduced that

this response is based on their previous training and the

amount of time becoming familiar with the database.

Question 22 asked about the speed of using the

database. Twenty-six percent considered it average, 39%

rated it as above average or excellent, while 26% considered

51



52

it below average. CD-ROM searching, while much faster than

manual methods, is considerably slower than on-line

searching. The responses here are mixed together, but those

states having databases on CD-ROM gave this a much lower

satisfaction rating than those using an on-line system.

Those using microforms were uniformly unhappy with the

manual searching capabilities of their database.

This also reflects a growing awareness of changing

technology. The computers of today are considerably faster

than the computer of four or five years ago, and the users

want to utilize that improvement.

Fifty-eight percent of the users considered the on-

screen directions to be above average, 27% considered them

average, and 10% considered them below average. In question

24 the users were not as kind in rating the Reference

Manual. Thirty-five percent considered it as only average,

35% considered it above average, and 18% considered it to be

below average. This also reflects some states that do not

have a reference manual at all, which is what most of the

13% who did not respond indicated.

Question 25 asked the user to rate the readability of

the database user screens. Eighty-nine percent rated them as

average, above average, or excellent. Overwhelmingly, the

users were in agreement that the design and text of the

screens were of high quality.



53

Question 26 refers to the CD-ROM systems that require a

physical change from one disc to another to access different

parts of the bibliographic database. Missouri found that

the addition of a single Author/Title index disc helped, but

did not entirely solve this problem.

TABLE 16

Increases or decreases of service.

1 __increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 213 4 5 NR Totals
Descriptor _____I jI jI Across

27. ILL incoming 73 103 80 10 3 18 287

%_25% 36% 28% 3% 1% 6% 99%

28. ILL outgoing 62 99 94 13 3 14 285

% 22% 35% 33% 5% 1% 5% 101%

29. FilL Rate 41 107 99 14 3 20 284

% 14% 38% 35% 5% 1% 7% 100%

30. BLind Searches 10 24 122 40 19 71 286
received

% 4% 8% 43% 14% 7% 25% 101%

Question 27 asked about the impact on resource sharing

via incoming ILL requests. Twenty-five percent indicated

that it had greatly increased their incoming ILL requests.

Thirty-six percent indicated that it has significantly

increased their incoming ILL requests. While 28% showed no

change and 4% indicated that they had a decrease in their

incoming ILL requests.

53



54

Question 28 asked about the impact on out-going ILL

requests. Ninety-four or 33% replied that it had no impact

on their requests. But 35% responded that it had a

significant increase and 22% responded that it increased

greatly their out-going ILL requests. Only 6% indicated

that it had decreased their out-going ILL requests.

Question 29 asked about the impact on the fill rate of

ILL requests. Thirty-five percent indicated that it had no

impact. Thirty-eight percent indicated that it had

significantly increased their fill rate, and 14% indicated

that it had greatly increased their fill rates. Again, 6%

indicated that it had decreased their fill rates.

Question 30 asked about blind search requests. Twenty-

five percent did not respond to this question, leading one

to believe that it was not understood by many of the

respondents. In fact one respondent wrote on the

questionnaire "what is a blind search?" Forty-three

indicated that it had no impact on their receiving blind

requests, while 21% indicated that it had reduced their

receiving blind requests. Twelve percent indicated that it

had increased their blind requests.

Question 31 (Table 17) asked for the approximate

percentage of interlibrary loan requests that were being

verified using the statewide database.



55

TABLE 17

ILL's being verified using the state-wide database

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

40 38 38 59 112 287

14% 13% 13% 21% 39% 100%

It appears that the users of statewide databases are

successful in verifying most of their interlibrary loan

requests with a search in the database. Over 39% of the

respondents reported that the success rate of verification

was between 76% and 100%. Only 13% indicated that they

verified one quarter or less of their ILL requests using the

statewide database, while another 34% indicated verifying

between 26% and 75% of their ILL requests.

Questions 32 asks the types of methods used to request

ILL prior to implementation of the statewide database. The

three methods most used were: U.S. Mail (31%); Networks

(23%); and Phone (21%) . OCLC came in at 10%, mainly from

the larger public and academic libraries. Four percent of

the respondents indicated that they had no ILL service

before the statewide database.



56

TABLE 18

Methods of ILL - before and after the state-wide database

OCLC Mail ALANET Net Phone Fax Other No TotaL
works Service #

Prior 62 196 10 145 131 47 22 24 637

%_10% 31% 2% 23% 21% 7% 3% 4% 101%

After 112 197 51 131 134 126 30 12 793

%_14% 25% 6% 17% 17% 16% 4% 2% 101%

Percentage 2% 1% %5 -1% 1% 3% %1 %200 80%
Increase/decrease

Question 33 asked about the method used for ILL

requests after implementation of the statewide database.

The mail (25%), Networks (17%), and phone (17%) decreased

significantly. At the same time, OCLC (14%), ALANET (6%)

and Fax (16%) showed significant increases in usage. In

1991, Missouri dropped using ALANET as it's state

communication ILL system. At that time Missouri's libraries

were one-third of the total users of ALANET, and paid over

$70,000.00 a year for the service. Four months after

Missouri canceled the contract, ALANET closed down.



57

TABLE 19

ILL voLume prior to and after the state-wide database

Prior to databasee Descriptor After database
incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

31 21 No Response 37 33

51 51 No Service 32 23

65 67 <10 59 54

30 29 10-20 47 57

23 34 21-44 25 29

15 18 45-75 21 26

6 6 76-100 9 13

18 28 101-350 27 31

6 2 351-499 6 4

8 3 500-1000 9 8

12 8 1001+ 16 11

To determine what effect, if any, the statewide

database has had on the volume of interlibrary loan

requests, the respondents were asked to provide statistics

regarding average monthly incoming and outgoing ILL requests

both before and after implementing the statewide database.

Table 19 shows these results.

This is followed by an increase in ILL usage, both in

incoming and outgoing ILL requests. Many libraries said

that it did not significantly change their ILL requests.

The change seems to be that there are now more libraries

using an ILL system than before the implementation of the

statewide database.

Prior to the advent of the statewide database, 51

respondent libraries did not participate in providing any



58

ILL service. Since the implementation of the statewide

database only 23 provide no outgoing ILL service. There was

a 37% increase in the libraries that provide ILL services to

their patrons since using the statewide database.

TABLE 20

Helpful features of database

Response n %

No Response 72 18%

Automation Plans 5 1%

CataLoging 22 6%

Item Status 7 2%

Ease of use 33 8%

ILL 19 5%

Location tooL 84 21%

Browse mode 2 1%

Searching 79 20%

Verification 28 7%

All formats are available 1 0

Reference use 16 4

Collection DeveLopment 5 1

Magazine Index - Author\Title 27 7
Index ._400_101%

400 101%

Eighteen percent did not respond to the question posed

in Table 20, while 21% indicated that the statewide database

was most helpful as a location tool. This was closely

followed (20%) by those using it to search bibliographic

records.



59

TABLE 21

Improvements needed _ n_%

Responses: n%

No Responses 71 20%

Authority control - cataloging - Acquisitions 15 4%

Electronic delivery - full text - E-MaiL 7 2%

Circulation Procedures - item Location 4 1%

CumuLative printing of screens or search 6 2%

ILL Policies, manuals, on-Line system 9 3%

Indexes to manuals, on screen instructions - 4 1%
Help Screens

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles - 57 16%
Cleanup database

Need more libraries inputing records 27 8%

Periodicals 11 3%

Update more often & consistently 42 12%

Searching - 30 8%

Public access software 6 2%

Conmiunications 3 1%

Speed 29 8%

Changing Discs - where applicable 11 3%

Refusal to loan materials 5 1%

Statistics 3 1%

For CD-ROM - Division of database other than 3 1%
by date

Change to CD-ROM 3 1%

Get every one on-line 6 2%

Education 3 1%

346 355 101%

98

Twenty percent of the users didn't respond to this

question. Sixteen percent indicated that the improvement

most needed was cleaning up the database and getting rid of

the duplicate records and multiple titles. Twelve percent



60

indicated that an improvement needed was consistent updating

of the database. Other concerns reflect the variation of

each state's database. For example, Pennsylvania has a

problem with some libraries refusing to loan materials

outside their local area. Other concerns are listed in

Table 21.

TABLE 22

Provides needed information

Responses: n

No Response 53 19%

No 17 6%

Yes 216 76%

286 101%

Seventy-six percent of the respondents indicate that

the statewide database does meet their needs.



61

TABLE 23

Priority of state-wide automation

Responses: n _ %

No Responses 112 25.6%

Accuracy in Database 21 4.8%

Automation Services to all Libraries 35 8.0%

Continuing Education 19 4.4%

Continue with current projects 19 4.4%

Full text deliver 12 2.8%

Funding 36 8.2%

Improve ILL delivery system 17 3.9%

Keep)Database updated 15 3.4%

Make system easer to use 13 3.0%

Retrospective Conversion 27 6.2%

Verification & Holding info. 1 0.2%

Statewide database 34 7.8%

Statewide electronic mail system 20 4.6%

Circulation software & hardware 18 4.1%

1 don't understand what Priority means? 1 0.2%

Statewide Borrowing agreement 20 4.6%

Switch to OCLC 3 0.7%

Vendor - Change 2 0.5%

Last copy center - out of print materials 2 0.5%

Electronic directory of libraries 2 0.5%

Database management -tong range planning 7 1.6%

Coordination lead by the state - don't install 1 0.2%
& abandon

427.0 437 100.2%
Sub- Sub-

97.9 Totals Totals

Totals 437 100.2%

Table 23 indicates again the variety of the concerns in

the 12 states surveyed. However, it is a sad commentary on

librarianship reading one users response that, "I don't

understand what Priority means?"



62

TABLE 24

Selected comments from respondents

Responses: n %

No Responses 256 %84.77

Include all libraries in state 2 %0.66

No way to cancel a request 1 %0.33

No serial holding request 1 %0.33

Not open to public 1 %0.33

Decrease paperwork 1 %0.33

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 5 %1.66

Reimbursement for ILL net lenders 9 %2.98

More training needed in automation 2 %0.66

Centralized billing for ILL 2 %0.66

Great if Automated 1 %0.33

Our library does not provide ILL service 1 %0.33

This is our main source of info about other 1 %0.33
Libraries

Funding is needed for private Libraries 1 %0.33

If materials cost less than $20, should not 1 %0.33
loan

Statewide library card 2 %0.66

Get it On-line 1 %0.33

Three methods of access, on-Line, CD-ROM, & 1 %0.33
Microfiche

We're 50 years behind the times 1 %0.33

No school bib records in the database 1 %0.33

Looking forward to getting new vendor 2 %0.66

Need Cataloging tool 1 %0.33

Most libraries use\prefer CD-ROM over 2 %0.66
Microfiche

Include aLL Libraries in State 1 %0.33

It is expensive 1 %0.33

State Library does an excellent job 1 %0.33

Has Greatly increased ILL from small Libraries 1 %0.33
with no additional funding

Need more statewide cooperation 2 %0.66

290.00 302 100%

96.01



63

Table 24 is a general question, intended to see if the

questions in the survey were understood, and to catch

anything that might be unique to a specific state. The

majority of respondents did not reply to this question

(84%). Of those who did, the responses were very

interesting. They included ideas from establishing a

centralized billing for ILL services, to using the statewide

database in reference services, to needing a cataloging

tool. This reflects the diversity of needs among libraries

in the states surveyed.

State Libraries responses:

Responses from individual states are compiled in

Appendix C. Many states would not provide the cost of their

statewide database. Of those states that did, the sum total

amounts to $7,629,082.

Wisconsin provided a cost analysis of how they

determined the cost of each format of a statewide database.

This can be found in Appendix F. They found that, assuming

everything is from startup cost to distribution, microfiche

would cost $548,019.00, OCLC would cost $5,029,354.00, and

CD-ROM would cost $377.019.00. They also looked at the

possibility of using an on-line vendor (not OCLC). The

projected cost was $6,207,397.00.



64

TABLE 25

Selected Responses of State Libraries

States: # of Lib. in # of Titles # of HoLdings Cost of
Data base Database

Alabama 40 2,770,704 5,700,000

Alaska 20 1,000,000 2,200,000 $43,000

Colorado 165 $75,000

Connecticut 207 2,040,090 9,613,923 $700,000.

Delaware 50 386,153

Georgia 182 7,800,000 14,000,000 $80,000.

ILLinois 375 7,700,000 21,400,000 $4,400,000.

Iowa 540 1,500,000 5,000,000

Indiana 90 11,000,000

Kansas 300 2,000,000 7,000,000

Louisiana 60 1,400,000 4,685,000

Maine 200 1,200,000 3,000,000 $100,000.

MaryLand 135 2,600,000 6,500,000 $325,000.

Mississippi 55 597,714 2,040,057 $50,000.

Missouri 216 3,500,000 9,000,000 $178,000.

Nebraska 135 4,000,000

Nevada 70 1,200,000

North Dakota 22 793,741 1,166,086 $233,217.

Ohio 24 343,055 654,734 $29,000.

Oklahoma 435 2,085,750 4,000,000

Oregon 165 100,000 250,000 $12,000.

Pennsylvania 1,050 2,600,000 12,800,000

Rhode Island 45 367,562 1,300,000 $100,000.

South Dakota 184 1,124,255 2,030,385 $446,846.

Tennessee 82 800,000 $180,000.

Virginia 88 4,000,000

West Virginia 111 1,293,000 3,000,000 $300,000.

Wisconsin 1,020 4,153,805 21,000,000 $ 377,019.

Sub-Totals 3,486 37,817,207 112,409,800 $6,225,217.00

Totals: 6,066 48,155,829 156,540,185 $7,629,082.00



65

According to the American Library Directory (1991-92)1

there are 31,127 libraries of all types, excluding branches

and other service centers, in the United States. The number

of libraries using statewide database as reported by the

various state libraries total 5,011. Statewide databases

contain a total of 46,070,079 titles, and 156,540,185

holdings records.



ENDNOTES

1. Simon, Peter, et al American Library Directory 1991-92 44th
Edition, New Providence, New Jersey:R.R. Bowker, 1991.

66



CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the major findings,

implications, and conclusions of this study, along with

suggestions for further research considerations. As

previously pointed out in Chapter 2, relatively little

published information exists concerning the implementation

of statewide bibliographic databases. While a review of the

literature indicated that the possibilities for developing

statewide databases are under consideration in various

states across the nation, many do not have any research to

support their decision making processes.

Two previous studies attempted to evaluate a single CD-

ROM database and give some information about the feasibility

of statewide databases. The first in Illinois (1987)

studied a version of the CD-ROM database using Brodarts

LePac software. The database was critiqued by a random

sample of patrons, by members of a University of Illinois

Library and Information Science class, and by the library

staff at four participating libraries.' In the second

study using the LePac software in Pennsylvania, Epler and

67



Cassell2 indicated that interlibrary loan transactions in
Pennsylvania increase by an average of 68% in the first year
after the introduction of ACCESS Pennsylvania. Because many
of the libraries in Pennsylvania were using the database as
a public access catalog, a 300-500% increase in circulation
was also reported. Among academic libraries, the database
was viewed as an important public relations and outreach

service.

Another reason for this high percentage of ILL can be
found by looking at the type of library using the statewide
database. Pennsylvania has made a tremendous effort to
include school libraries in the statewide database. Before
the statewide database, school libraries had no access to a
bibliographic database or a state-wide union list. They had
no computerized system available and in most of the school
libraries no ILL service was offered prior to the statewide
database. In this respect Pennsylvania is not unusual. In
most states school libraries do not have access to
bibliographic databases. In those states where school
libraries are included within the database the same holds
true.

Size of Libraries, Effect of Use of Statewide Database

Thirty percent of the libraries responding to this
survey had less than 25, 000 volumes in the their

68



69

collections. There is a definite correlation between the

size of the library and the enthusiasm the respondent had

for the statewide database. The small libraries had nothing

like this in the past, and have found the state-wide

bibliographic database to be a tremendous resource. The

larger libraries had access to other types of databases such

as OCLC, RLIN, etc. and as a result show less enthusiasm.

The state-wide database has made a difference in their

ability to compare databases and their effectiveness.

Format of the Statewide Database

Three basic formats are used in statewide databases:

Microfiche; CD-ROM; and On-line. The greatest difficulty

found in microfiche is that it is a manual searching

database.

The CD-ROM database systems were the most cost

effective. The majority of these databases were paid for by

the state at no cost to the individual library other than

the staff to maintain it, and the equipment to display it.

It's searching capability was liked by the majority of

respondents who used CD-ROM, and it was found to be useful

in cataloging and reference searching as well as ILL. It's

biggest drawback was in the update schedule, the number of

duplicate records, and the number of discs that needed to be



70

changed. Iowa was one of the states who had a very weak

software retrieval program and had decided to change

vendors. As a result of this their responses were very

negative.

The on-line systems were rated from great enthusiasm,

to deep despair. Maryland's on-line system does not allow

for Boolean searching, keyword searching, or wildcard

searching. Needless to say, the people of Maryland were not

happy with their database. North and South Dakota were very

happy with their system and said great things about it.

Each state's database has different advantages and

weaknesses.

Use of Statewide Databases by Libraries

It is evident that the statewide databases are being

used by libraries. The extent of the use varies depending

upon a number of factors. Both size and type of library

appeared to have a bearing on the degree to which the

statewide databases are being used. Smaller libraries which

did not have a wealth of other resources such as affiliation

with a bibliographic utility for cataloging and/or

interlibrary loan welcomed the statewide database as a much

needed tool for providing service to their patrons. Public

libraries comprise the majority of users (45%).



71

Many states allow school libraries to participate, but

no funds are available to assist them in retrospective

conversion of their bibliographic records. Most states

require that a library supply its bibliographic records in

machine readable form before allowing them to use a state

supported ILL system. This has resulted in a few school

libraries participating in statewide database projects.

School libraries account for 17% of the respondents, the

majority from to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, who have made

an effort to include school libraries as a part of their

statewide database.

Many academic libraries use OCLC and do not wish to

duplicate efforts in searching and responding to ILL

requests from other sources.

Variety of Uses of the Statewide Database

The primary use of the system is for resource sharing.

Almost 40% of the respondents were using their statewide

database for interlibrary loan. However, the majority of

staff that use the statewide database identified themselves

as reference staff, not interlibrary loan staff. A possible

explanation could be that smaller libraries do not have the

personnel to separate jobs, and the reference staff also

handle all interlibrary loan requests.



72

The second major use of the system was as a cataloging

and/or acquisitions verification tool. More than 24% of the

respondents used the system for this purpose. Approximately

15% of the users reported that the database was used as a

public access resource. This may resolve the question of

why reference staff use it so much; they help the patrons to

use it. Eleven percent of the respondents indicated that

they use the database as a collection development tool.

While there is no simple answer to the amount of time

spent using the database, the majority of users appear to

use the system between an hour and an hour daily.

Communication Methods

The U.S. Mail is still the system most libraries use,

but that use is declining from 31% prior to the statewide

database to 25% after implementation of the statewide

database. State, local, or regional networks, the phone,

and facsimile, are among the next level of communications

for ILL requests. OCLC is slowly gaining ground, but it is

a slow growth (10% up to 14%). The advent of telefacsimile

(fax) could have an impact because fax machines were not

readily available to libraries when most state-wide database

projects were started.



73

Opinions on the Standard Features of Systems

There was virtually no difference between the standard

search capabilities and the advance search capabilities in

user satisfaction. Both the browse and express searching

were scored almost identical to each other. The boolean,

keyword, and wildcard searching levels however, were rated

very differently. This seems to be because some systems do

not have the capability to perform these searching

strategies.

Almost all users were favorable to the screen design of

their various systems. While not being overly generous with

excellent ratings, a clear majority of users agreed the

clarity of on-screen directions, the readability of the

screens, and the general ease in using the system were above

average. This was not true when it came to the reference

manual. While a majority found it acceptable, many

responded by saying "We have never gotten a reference

manual."

This researcher concluded that users were very positive

in their assessment of the mechanics of using the system,

and in having the system available to them.



74

Effect of Statewide Database on Resource Sharing

The effect of the statewide database, while not

dramatic, does show a definite increase in use of ILL;

incoming, outgoing, and fill rates. Looking at the volume

of ILL transactions in Table 19 found in Chapter 4, we can

see a definite increase in ILL since the implementation of

the statewide databases. However, this can be explained

more simply by looking at the number of libraries that did

not offer any ILL service prior to the implementation of the

statewide database.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Statewide Databases

It is impossible to identify all of the strengths and

weaknesses of all of the statewide databases due to their

complexity, variances, and differences in format. However,

all the users agree that the statewide database has changed

the way that they operate portions of their library. From

cataloging, to the reference desk, to the circulation desk,

to the cataloger, changes have occurred in how these various

departments offered services.

Simply being a tool that provides holdings information

is a strength of each statewide database. While each state

believes that its system could be improved, the respondents

communicated their approval that the statewide database



75

exists and can provide the basis for continued growth of

resource sharing in their state.

Weaknesses were mentioned in great detail, but they

were different for each state. Many users indicated that

they would prefer a communications network that is linked to

the database directly so that information does not have to

be re-keyed to request materials.

A database is only as good as the information it

contains; therefore, users want a "clean" database without

duplicate records, typos, and poor quality cataloging.3

This is perceived as a weakness of almost all the statewide

database systems. Interestingly enough the Library of

Congress's catalog and OCLC also have problems with a clean

database.4

Factors to Consider in Selecting a Statewide Database Vendor

In Appendix E are condensed responses to the Missouri

RFP from Auto-Graphics, Brodart Company, and Library

Corporation. Appendix F contains an example of a cost

analysis of the different formats of a statewide database.

The information here and the responses found in Appendix D

give us the following questions to ask in preparing to

select a vendor for a statewide database.



76

1. How much money do you have and how stable is it over

several years?

2. Will the local libraries be expected to purchase

equipment, or will the State Library provide grants for

equipment?

3. How current do you want the database to be? If

constantly updated, the system must be on-line. If

quarterly , semi-annually, or annually, then CD-ROM is

the best solution.

4. What is the purpose of the statewide database? If ILL,

then either on-line or CD-ROM is preferred. Do you

want an electronic ILL request system as part of the

statewide database?

5. Does your state have a flat rate telecommunications

system maintained by the state? If so this will

eliminate the greatest cost of an on-line system.

6. On-line systems - if not item tracing, can be

distributed to several regional libraries instead of

having to centralize everything.



77

7. If on-line, can the software system handle magazine

indexes and full text journal articles? This is

desired by many librarians today.

8. What kind of support staff does the State Library have

to maintain the system?

9. How many libraries already have bibliographic databases

of their local holdings? One possibility is to

consider a consortia database like the Colorado

Research Academic Libraries (CARL) rather than an

integrated database.

10. What kinds of libraries are to be included?

In looking at a statewide database remember that cost

is only one significant consideration in selecting a vendor.

Helgerson (1987) provides a comprehensive report on how to

select a CD-ROM public access system. Her information is

still quite useful.
5

Significance of This Study

This study has compiled information about state-wide

bibliographic databases that has never previously been



78

published. It is significant and has made contributions to

the field of library and information science. In this study

can be found:

1. the strengths and weaknesses of existing state-wide

bibliographic databases;

2. what software is currently being used;

3. what states have state-wide bibliographic databases;

4. the types of libraries included in those databases;

5. their purposes;

6. their costs;

7. their formats;

8. the number of titles and records in each database; and

9. the contact person in each state with responsibility of

that state-wide database.

Libraries now have information that can help them

select a format and a vendor of bibliographic database.

This study can be a guide to libraries establishing their

own database, or it can be used to re-evaluate a states

existing bibliographic database. It includes many factors

they should consider before starting to develop their own

state-wide bibliographic database.



79

Recommendations for Further Study

The area not studied in as great a detail as desired

was the cost of a statewide database. Many State Libraries

either did not have a good understanding of the actual cost

of their statewide database or were reluctant to reveal the

information.

Six states had multiple formats of databases. Those

formats, Microfiche, CD-ROM, and on-line should be compared

separately. Including them all together was like mixing

apples and oranges. Many of the problems of one format

didn't exist in another, and many things simply were not

comparable. The responses from those states with multiple

formats were difficult to interpret, since it was difficult

to determine which format was being evaluated.

An interesting line of research would be to find out

why some databases are still produced on microforms since

the Wisconsin study 6 clearly shows that microfiche is more

expensive to produce than CD-ROM if you are starting with no

database and no equipment.

The National Research and Education Network (NREN) act

opens up the possibility of having all statewide databases

available nation wide, at a very low cost. This could mean

the death of the bibliographic utility companies, unless

they can adapt to the changing technology and

telecommunications that are now available to many libraries.



ENDNOTES

1. Watson, P. K. "CD-ROM catalogs -- Evaluating LePac and
looking ahead." Online 11, no. 5 (1987): 74-80.

2. Epler, D., and R.E. Cassell "Access Pennsylvania: A CD-ROM
database project." Library Hi Tech 5, no. 3 (1987): 81-92.

3. Flanders, Bruce. "Library Automation News and Analysis"
Kansas Libraries (June 1991): 6.

4. Beall, Jeffrey. "AL Aside - Ideas: The dirty database
test" American Libraries (March 1991): 197.

5. Helgerson, L. W. , "Acquiring a CD-ROM Public Access
Catalog System Part 1: The Bottom Line may not be the top
priority." Library Hi Tech 19, vol. 5, no. 3 (Fall 1987):
49-75.

6. Wisconsin Council on Library and Network Development.
Automating Wisconsin Libraries. Madison, WI: Wisconsin State
Department of Public Instruction, Division of Library
Services; 1987.

80



APPENDIX A

STATEWIDE BIBLIOGRAPHIC HOLDINGS DATABASE

ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

81



APPENDIX A

STATEWIDE BIBLIOGRAPHIC HOLDINGS DATABASE

Assessment Questionnaire

Please respond to the following questions about the library
in which you work and the use of the statewide bibliographic
holdings database. Check or circle the appropriate reply.

Title of person completing the questionnaire.

1. Type of Library:
(a) ___ Public
(c) School

(b) Academic
(d) Special

2. Size of library collection:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Annual Circulation of
this collection:

Under 25,000 volumes
25,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
100,001 - 250,000
Over 250,000

4. The statewide bibliographic holdings database is used
for: (Check all that apply)

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

Interlibrary loan
Public access catalog
Back-up catalog for local system
Cataloging/Acquisitions verification tool
Collection development aid
Other (Please specify).

82

5. Amount of time spent daily using statewide database:
(minutes) (hours)



83

6. Amount of time spent daily on Interlibrary loan
processes: (minutes) (hours)

7. Library personnel who use statewide database:

(a) _ Interlibrary Loan Staff
(b) ___ Reference Staff
(c) ___ Technical Services Staff
(d) ___ Library Director
(e) ___ Extension Services Staff
(f) ___ Other (Please specify)

8. Is the statewide database loaded on equipment dedicated
to its use? (a) Yes (b) No

9. Do library patrons use the statewide database?
(a) Yes (b) ___ No
If No, please give reason (i.e. used only in technical
services, no room in public area, afraid of damage,
etc.)

10. Has hardware (equipment failure or incompatibility)
been a problem in using the statewide database?
(a) Yes (b) No

If Yes, please describe

11. Has software (the retrieval system) been a problem in
using the statewide database?
(a) -Yes (b) ___ No (c) _Not Applicable

If Yes, please describe

12. Did the State Library offer special training workshops
before disseminating the statewide database?
(a) Yes (b) No

13. Did you or someone from your library participate in a
training session prior to implementation to the use of
the statewide database?
(a) _ Yes (b) ___ No

14. If yes, was the training session adequate for efficient
use of the statewide database? (a) Yes (b) No



84

15. Do you or your staff feel the need for additional
training? (a) _ Yes (b) .1_No

On the scale of 1 to 5 rate
quality / usefulness of:

the relative importance /

16. Browse mode of
searching

17. Express mode of
searching

18. Boolean searching

19. "Anyword" or

"Keyword" searching

20. Truncated searching
(wildcard "*" or
"?")

21. General ease of
searching

22. Response time

23. Clarity of on-screen
directions

24. Information in the
Reference Manual

25. Readability of the
database user
screens

26. Procedures for
changing discs (if
necessary)

EXCELLENT
1 2

AVERAGE POOR
3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5



On the scale of 1 to 5 with 1
rate the increase or decrease

27. Since the
implementation of
the statewide
database, have
incoming
interlibrary loan
requests:

28. Outgoing
interlibrary loan
requests have:

29. The fill rate (the
percentage of
interlibrary loan
requests
successfully
completed) since the
implementation of
the statewide
database has:

30. The number of blind
search requests
received (excluding
any agreements the
library has with
other libraries to
accept blind
searches) has:

31. The approximate
percentage of
Interlibrary loan
requests verified
via the statewide
database is:

32. The method(s) used
to transmit
interlibrary loan
requests prior to
the statewide
database was: (check
all that apply)

being the greatest increase,
of the following:
INCREASED SAME DECREASED
GREATLY GREATLY

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

2 2 3 4 5

2 2 3 4 5

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%

(a) OCLC
(b) U.S. Mail
(c) ALANET
(d) Local or Regional

network
(e) ___ Phone
(f) Fax
(g) ___ Other (Please
specify)

85



86

33. The method(s) used
to transmit
interlibrary loan
request after
implementation of
the statewide
database is: (check
all that apply)

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

OCLC
U.S. Mail
ALANET
Local or Regional

network
(e) Phone
(f) Fax
(g) Other (Please
specify)

Please answer the following statistical questions to the

best of your ability.

34. On the average, annual interlibrary loan requests prior
to the statewide database were approximately:

incoming
(number of items, incoming means requests received from other libraries.)

outgoing

35. On the average, annual interlibrary loan requests since
implementing the statewide database are approximately:

incoming
(number of items, incoming means requests received from other libraries.)

outgoing

36. List those features of the statewide database that are
especially helpful.

37. List those features of the statewide database that are

in need of improvement.

38. Does the statewide database provide the needed
information to find library materials?

YES NO

39. What do you feel should be the first priority of
statewide automation?

40. Please make any comments about the statewide database,
that weren't already addressed above.



APPENDIX B

QUESTIONS ASKED IN SURVEY SENT TO STATE LIBRARY

AUTOMATION OFFICERS

87



APPENDIX B

Questions asked in Survey sent to State Library
Automation Officers

If your state has a statewide bibliographic database project
please return this survey to Stan Gardner, 4417 Stringtown
Rd., Lohman, MO 65053.

1. Number of libraries involved in State-wide
bibliographic database project?

2. Types of libraries involved in state-wide bibliographic
database project?
(a) ___ Public (b) - Academic

(c) ___ School (d) Special

3. What format has been selected to disseminate the state-
wide bibliographic database? (Microforms, On-line, CD-
ROM?)
(a) ___ CD-ROM (b) - Microform (c) On-line
(d) ___ Print (e) - Other (Please explain Other)

4. Current number of holdings and titles in state-wide
bibliographic database?

holdings: unique titles:

5. Vendor who maintains and produces the state-wide
bibliographic database? (Or is this done "in-house?")

6. Primary goal of the state-wide bibliographic database?
(a) interlibrary loan - resource sharing
(b) statewide automation development
(c) local library automation development
(d) public access catalogs
(e) cataloging
(f) other

7. What is the annual cost of the project?

88



89

8. What is the source of the fund for the project?
(a) LSCA
(b) State
(c) Local
(d) Private
(e) combination of above

9. What year was the statewide bibliographic database
first produced?

10. What is the name of the person responsible for the
ongoing maintenance and development of the state-wide
bibliographic database?

Name Title

11. Are serials and/or Audio/Visual materials included in
the state-wide database?

(a) ___ Yes (b) No

12. What is the current number of interlibrary loan
requests in your state?

Incoming Outgoing

Special Libraries?

Academic Libraries?

Public Libraries?

School Libraries?

13. What was the number of interlibrary loan requests in
your state before implementing the statewide database?

Incoming Outgoing

Special Libraries?

Academic Libraries?

Public Libraries?

School Libraries?



90

14. Is USMARC Communications II the protocol used in the

database? If not, what is the protocol?

15. What has been the greatest value of having a statewide
database in your state?



APPENDIX C

USER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

BY STATE

91



APPENDIX C
USER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

BY STATE
Responses from Alaska: Tables C26 to C48

TABLE C26

Question # 1: Title of Respondent - Alaska

Title: n %

Assistant - Associate Director 0 0%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 1 10%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 6 60%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection Development 1 10%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 2 20%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 0 0%

Name 0 0%

Reference Librarian 0 0%

System Operator 0 0%

No Response 0 0%

10 100%

92



93

TABLE C27

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Alaska

Type Number Percentage

Public 5 50%

Academic 2 20%

School 1 10%

Special 2 20%

Totals: 10 100%

TABLE C28

Size of CoLLections - Alaska

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 2 20.0%

25,001 - 50,000 2 20.0%

50,001 - 100,000 1 10.0%

100,001 - 250,000 2 20.0%

Over 250,000 3 30.0%

Not Responsive 0 0.0%

Total 10 100.0%

TABLE C29

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - Alaska

Description Number J0%
Interlibrary loan 9 26%

Reference Staff 5 15%

Backup 3 9%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 10 29%

Collection Development 6 18%

Other 1 3%

34 100%



94

TABLE C30

Questions #5 & 6 - Alaska - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide Database Interlibrary loan

Minutes n Lnw%
0 or no response 1 10% 1 10.0%

Less than 10 0 0% 0 0.0%

10 to19 0 0% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 0 0% 1 10.0%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 0 0% 2 20.0%

120 -179 0 0% 2 20.0%

180 - 239 3 30% 0 0.0%

240 - 299 0 0% 0 0.0%

300 + 6 60% 4 40.0%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

Total 10 100% 10 100.0%

TABLE C31

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Alaska

Staff n__%

Interlibrary Loan 10 25.6%

Reference 9 23.1%

Technical Services 10 25.6%

Director 5 12.8%

Extension Services staff 4 10.3%

Other 1 2.6%

No Response 0 0.0%

Total 39 100.0%



95

TABLE C32

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Alaska

Responses _n_

No response 1 10.0%

Yes 7 70.0%

No 2 20.0%

Total 10 100.0%

TABLE C33

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Alaska

Responses n %

No response11 10%

Yes 7 70%

No 2 20%

Total 10 100%

TABLE C34

No Public Access - Why - Alaska
Question 9A

Responses% n

No Response 8 80%

No Interest00%

No Equipment 1 10%

Used as a toy 1 10

Staff use only 0 0

No R oom 00%

Totat 10 100%



96

TABLE C35

Question# 10 - Hardware-Alaska

Responses n %

No response 1 10%

Yes 0 0%

No 9 90%

Total 10 100%

TABLE C36

Question # 11 - Software - Alaska

Responses n %

No response 1 5%

Yes 1 5%

No 8 40%

Not Applicable 10 50%

Total 20 100%

TABLE C37

[ Question # 12 & 13 - Training - Alaska
Responses n - n -

State Attended
Training

No response 1 0 0%

Yes 4 8 80%

No 5 2 20%

Total 10 10 100%



97

TABLE C38

Questions 1 4 & 15- Training- Alaska

n - Adequate training % n - need
Training

3 30% 1

7 70% 5

0 0% 4

10 100% 10

Responses

No response

Yes

No

Total

%

10%

50%

40%

100%

1

I



98

Alaska
Importance / Quality /

1 = Excellent. 5 =

Question # & Descriptor

16. Browse - Author,
Title, or Subject
Searches.

17. Express - Advanced
Level of searching.

18. Boolean

19. Keyword

20. Wildcard

21. Searching

22. Speed

23. Directions

24. Manual

25. Screens

26. Changing Discs

Total. # per category

Average Percentage of
each category

Average of each
category

10%
1

10%1

10%.

2

20%

2

20%

2

20%

.3

30%.

2

20%

3

30%

2

20%

10%

20

18%

2

2

5

50%

3

30%

2

20%

4

40%

2

20%

3

30%

2-

20%

2-

20%

2

20%

2

20%

3

30%

30

27%

3

3

2

20%

3

30%

1

10%

2

20%

2

20%

10%

3

30%

0

0%

1

10%

3

30%

3

30%

21

19%

2

Usefulness
Poor

4 5 NR Totals
Across

0

0%.

0

0%-

2

20%

0

0%

I

10%

2

20%

0

0%

3

30%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

8

7%

1

0

0%

0

0%

10%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0-%

1

10%

2

20%

-10%
0

0%

5

5%

0
0 2 -MMOt

2

20%

3

30%

3

30%

2

20%

3

30%

2

20%

2

20%

2

20%

2

20%
2

20%

3

30%

26

24%

2

10

100%

10

10

10

100%

10

100%

10

100%

10

100%

10
100%

10

100%

10

100%
10

100%

10

100%
10

100%

I

I

I

I

TABLEV C39

I I

I



99

IMPACT OF THE STATEWIDE DATABASE ON RESOURCE SHARING

TABLE C40

Alaska
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 increased, 5 decreased.
Question # & 1 J 2 13 4 5I NR TotalsDescriptor ii ____JAcross
27. ILL 3 6 0 0 0 1 10
incoming

30% 60% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100%
28. ILL 2 7 0 0 0 1 10
outgoing

z_ _ 20% 70% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100%
2 9

. Fill Rate 2 5 2 0 0 1 10
%_20% 50% 20% 0% 0% 10% 100%

30. Blind 1 1 3 1 1 3 10Searches
received

%10% 10% 30% 10% 10% 30% 100%

TABLE C41

Question # 31 - Alaska

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

1 1 2 5 10
10% 10% 10% 20% 50% 100%

-I



100

TABLE C42

Alaska
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks

32. Prior 1 9 1 3 3 2 2 0 21

% 5% 43% 5% 14% 14% 10% 10% 0% 101%

33. After 4 7 1 4 3 4 6 0 29

%_14% 24% 3% 14% 10% 14% 21% 0% 100%
Percentage 4% -1% %1 -1% -1% 2% 3% 0% 72%Increase/decrease

TABLE C43

Questions # 34 & 35 - Alaska __
Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoingincoming_ J outgoing
2 2 No Response 2 3
2 0 <10 0 0
2 1 10-20 2 1
1 2 21-44 0 1
0 0 45-75 1 1
0 2 76-100 1 0
2 3 101-350 3 2
0 0 351-500 0 1
1 0 500-1000 1 1
0 0 1001+ 0 0
10 10 TotaL Responses 10 10

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
______________Decrease of ILL



101

TABLE C44

Question # 36 - Alaska

Response n %
No Response 3 9%

Automation Plans 0 0%

Cataloging 0 0%

Collection Development 0 0%
Ease of use 1 3%
ILL Printed Forms 0 0%

Location toot 5 16%
Reference use 1 3%

Searching 2 6%

Verification 0 0%

- - --- ----- --------.......... . 12 37%



102

TABLE C45

Alaska
Improvements needed

Question_#_37
Responses: n %

No Responses 3 23%

Authority controL 0 0%

Changing Discs, to many discs 0 0%

Cleanup 0 0%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

Get all Libraries on-line or CD-ROM 2 15%

E-Mail 0 0%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 1 8%

Periodicals add 0 0%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%

Searching - save search terms & que between 3 23%
discs

Statistics 1 8%

Updating more often & consistently 3 23%

13 100%

TABLE C46

Question # 38 - Alaska
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 2 20%

No 0 %o

Yes 8 %80

10 100%



103

TABLE C47

ALaska
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 4 33.3%

Accuracy in Database 1 8.3%

Automation Services to all libraries 1 8.3%

Continuing Education 0 0.0%

Continue with current projects 0 0.0%

Full text deliver 0 0.0%

Funding 
0.0%

Improve ILL delivery system 1 8.3%

Keep Database updated 0 0.0%

Make system easer to use 0 0.0%

Retrospective Conversion 2 16.7%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 1 8.3%

Statewide database 1 8.3%

Statewide electronic mail system 0 %0.0

Establish statewide circulation system 0 0.0%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0.0%

Database management- long range planning 1 8.3%
Totals 12 99.8%

TABLE C48

Alaska
Question # 40

Comments

Responses:_ n%

No Responses 8 100%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 0 0%

Reimbursement for ILL net Lenders 0 0%

Great if Automated 0 0%

Three methods of access, on-Line, CD-ROM, & 0 0%
Microfiche

This is our main source of information about 0 0%
other libraries

_________________________________ 8100%



104

Responses from Connecticut: Tables C49 to C70

TABLE C49

#Question_#1:_Title ofRespondent_- Connecticut _%

Title: j n ]
Assistant - Associate Director 1 4%

Assistant ILL 0 0%
Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 1 4%

Coordinator Adult Services 1 4%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 12 50%

Extension Librarian 1 4%
Head, Collection Development 0 0%
Head, Reference Services 

1 4%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%
Library Clerk 

0 0%
Library Tech 

0 0%
Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 0 0%
Name 

3 13%

Reference Librarian 
3 13%

System Operator 
0 0%

No Response 1 4%

24 100%



105

TABLE C50

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Connecticut

Type Number Percentage
PubLic 

16 67%
Academic 8 33%
School 0 0%
Special 

0%
Totals: 24 100%

TABLE C51

Size of ColLections - Connecticut
Responses: n %fZ

-.... .0. . users
Under 25,000

25,001 - 50,000

50,001 - 100,000

100,001 - 250,000

over 250,000

Not Responsive

Total

2

12

4

3

2

24
24

8%

50%

17%

13%

8%

400%

TABLE C52

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - Connecticut
DescriptionNumber

Interlibrary loan 22 34%
Public Access 16 25%
Backup 7

Cataloging / Acquisitions 10 
15%

Collection Deveopment 6 
9%

Reference - Other 4

__65

I



106

TABLE C53

Questions #5 & 6 - Connecticut - Amount of time spend daiLy on:

Statewide Database InterLibrary Loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 4 16.7% 6 25.0%

Less than 10 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
10 to19 2 8.3% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 0 0.0% 1 4.2%
30 - 44 3 12.5% 4 16.7%
45 - 59 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60 - 119 4 16.7% 4 16.7%
120 - 179 3 12.5% 3 12.5%
180 - 239 3 12.5% 1 4.2%

240 - 299 1 4.2% 1 4.2%
300 + 4 16.7% 4 16.7%
Other 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
.TotaL _24 100.1% 24 100.2%

TABLE C54

Question # - Type of staff using database - Connecticut

Staff n_%

Interlibrary toan 21 31.8%

Reference 18 27.3%

Technical Services 13 19.7%

Director 12 18.2%

Extension Services staff-o 
0.0%

Other 1 1.5%

Students, Faculty of 0 0.0%
institution

No Response 1 1.5%
Total 66 100.0%



107

TABLE C55

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Connecticut

Responses J n
No response 2 8.3%

Yes 20 83.3%

No 2 8.3%

Total 24 99.9%
TABLE C56

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Connecticut

Responses n

No response 0 0%
Yes 22 92%
No 28%

Total 24 100%
TABLE C57

No Public Access - Why - Connecticut
Question 9A

ResponsesJ nI

No Response 23 96%

No Interest 0 0%
No Equipment 0 0%

Microfiche onj 0 0
Staff use only 0 0

No Room 1 4%
Total 24 100%

TABLE C57

Question # 10 Hardware - Connecticut
Responses J

No response 4%
Yes 2 8%
No 21 88%
Total 24 100%



108

TABLE C.58

Question # 11 - Software - Connecticut

Responses n

No response 2 4.4%
Yes 12.2%
No 20 43.5%
Not Applicable 23 50.0%
Total 46

TABLE C59

Question # 12 & 13-Training-Connecticut

Responses n - n -
State Attended

Training

No response 2 4%
Yes 21 22 92%

No 1 1 4%
Total 24 24 100%

TABLE C60

Questions 14-& 15- Training- Connecticut

Responses n- Adequate training % n - need %
I I Training

No response- 2 8% 2 8%
Ye WW21 88% 3 13%

No41 
4% 19 79%

Total 24 100% 24 100%



109

TABLE C61

Connect i cut
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
I I__ 11Across

16. Browse - Author, 8 9 4 1 0 2 24
Title, or Subject
Searches.

%_33% 38% 17% 4% 0% 8% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 6 7 3 0 1 7 24
levelof searching. 

-_______%25% 29% 13% 0% 4% 29% 100%

18. Boolean 3 2 4 4 2 9 24

% 13% 8% 17% 17% 8% 38% 101%

19. Keyword 8 5 5 1 1 4 24

% 33% 21% 21% 4% 4% 17% 100%

20. Wildcard 4 2 5 1 3 9 24

% 17% 8% 21% 4% 13% 38% 101%

21. Searching 11 9 3 0 0 1 24

%46% 38% 13% 0% 0% 4% 101%

22. Speed 9 10 3 1 0 1 24

%_38% 42% 13% 4% 0% 4% 101%

23. Directions 14 6 3 0 0 1 24

% 58% 25% 13% 0% 0% 4% 100%

24. Manual 4 5 7 1 2 5 24

% 17% 21% 29% 4% 8% 21% 100%
25. Screens 8 9 5 0 0 2 24

%_33% 38% 21% 0% 0% 8% 100%

26. Changing Discs 4 4 5 0 0 11 24

%_17% 17% 21% 0% 0% 46% 101%

Total # per category 79 68 47 9 9 52 24

Average Percentage of 30% 26% 18% 3% 3% 20% 100%
each category

Average of each 7 6 4 1 1 5
category



110

TABLE C62

Connecticut

Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.
S=1 increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & ~ 1 2 3 J 4 5 I NR I Totals
[Descriptor I_ _ __ __ _ _I_ _ _ _J Across
27. ILL 7 6 8 1 2 0 24
incoming

29% 25% 33% 4% 8% 0% 99%

28. ILL 8 7 8 1 0 0 24
outgoing

% 33% 29% 33% 4% 0% 0% 99%

29. Fill Rate 3 5 15 1 0 0 24

% 13% 21% 63% 4% 0% 0% 101%

30. Blind 1 1 14 0 0 8 24
Searches
received

4% 4% 58% 0% 0% 33% 99%

TABLE C63

Question # 31 - Connecticut

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

4 6 3 5 6 24

17% 25% 13% 21% 25% 101%

TABLE C64

Connecticut
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks

32. Prior 9 12 0 14 15 7 3 0 60

% 15% 20% 0% 23% 25% 12% 5% 0% 100%

33. After 9 11 0 11 13 14 3 1 62

% 15% 18% 0% 18% 21% 23% 5% 2% 102%

Percentage 1% -1% 0% -1% -1% 2% 1% 0% 97%
Increase/decrease



111

TABLE C65

Questions # 34 & 35 - Connecticut

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

2 2 No Response 2 2

4 2 <10 2 1

5 3- 10-20 4 2

2 7 21-44 3 5

1 4 45-75 2 4

4 0 76-1002 2

2 4 101-350 5 6

1 0 351-500 1 0

1 0 500-1000 2 1

2 2 1001+ 1 1

24 24 Total Responses 24 24

Percentage increase / 100% 100%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C66

Question # 36 - Connecticut

Response n %

No Response 3 10%

Automation Plans 1 3%

Cataloging 1 3%

Collection Development 1 3%

Ease of use 3 10%

ILL Printed Forms 2 7%

Location tooL 12 40%

Reference use 0 0%

Searching 6 20%

Verification 1 3%

30 99%



112

TABLE C67

Connecticut
Improvements needed

Question_#_37

Responses: n %

No Responses 5 15.6%

Authority control 1 3.1%

Changing Discs, to many discs 0 0.0%

CLeanup 2 6.3%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0.0%

Division of database other than by dates 0 0.0%

E-Mail 0 0.0%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 6 18.8%

Need more libraries inputting records 8 25.0%

Periodicals add 2 6.3%

Refusal to loan materiaLs 0 0.0%

Manual of ILL policies 2 6.3%

Boolean searching - add 3 9.4%

Updating more often & consistently 3 9.4%

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __1 32 100.2%

TABLE C68

Question # 38 - Connecticut
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 1 4%

No 2 %

Yes 21 %88

24 100%



113

TABLE C69

Connect i cut
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n

No Responses 5 11%
Accuracy in Database 0 0%

Automation Services to all libraries 6 13%

Continuing Education 1 2%
Continue with current projects 1 2%

Full text deliver 1 2%

Funding 3 7%

Improve ILL delivery system 1 2%

Keep Database updated 2 4%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

-Retrosctive Conversion 3 7%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 1 2%

Statewide database122%

Statewide electronic mail system 5 %11
Establish statewide circulation system 3 7%

I don't understand what Priority means? 00%
Database management Long range planning 3 7%
Totals 45 99%

TABLE C70

Connecticut
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: 
n %

No Responses 18 67%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 1 4%

Reimbursement for ILL net lenders 4 15%
This is our main source of information about 1 4%
other libraries

Statewide library card 2 7
Get it on-line 1 4

27 101%



114

Responses from Delaware: Tables C71 to C93.

TABLE C71,

Question # 1: Title of Respondent
Title: 

n %

Director, Head Librarian 8 67%
ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%
Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%
Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%
Head, Reference Services 1 8%
Media Specialist, LRC Specialist 0 0%
Assistant - Associate Director 1 8%
Assistant-ILL 

0 0%
Library Tech 0 0%
L library Cerk 0 0%
System operator 0 0%

Reference Librarian 1 8%
Name 

0 0%
B-ibliographic Specialtist 1 8%/
Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%
Head, Col lect ion DevetopMent 0 0%
Extension Librarian 0 0%

12 99%



115

TABLE C72

TABLE C7-3

-__,....._. Size of Collections - Delaware

Responses: n % of users
Under 25,000 650
25,001 - 50,000 3 25%
50,001 - 100,000 0 0%
1001001 - 250000 3 25%
Over 2500000 

0%
Not Responsive 0

Total 12

TAB-LE C7 4

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - Delaware
Description Number

Interlibrary loan 12 60.0%
Public Access 5 25.0%
Backup 2 10.0%
Cataloging / Acquisitions 1 5.0%
Collection Development 0 0.0%
Other_0 

0.0%
C, 20 100.0%

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of ILib -
- -,. -- -- -- - ---- - I- 1-L Li ary D--uetaware

Type Number Percentage

Public 9 75%
Academic 2 17%
School 0 0%

Special 1 8%

TotaLs: 12 100%



116

TABLE C75

Questions #5 & 6 - Delaware - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide Database Interlibrary loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 2 17% 1 8%

Less than10 0 0% 0 0%

10 to19 0 0% 0 0%

20 to 29 1 8% 0 0%

30 - 44 5 42% 1 8%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0%

60 - 119 3 25% 5 42%

120 - 179 0 0% 2 17%

180 - 239 0 0% 1 8%

240 - 299 0 0% 1 8%

300 + 0 0% 1 8%

Other 1 8% 0 0%

Total 12 100% 12 99%

TABLE C76

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Delaware

Staff n %

No Response 0 %0

Interlibrary loan 11 42%

Reference 7 27%

Technical Services 1 4%

Director 4 15%

Extension Services 1 4

Other 2 8%

Total 26 100%



117

TABLE C77

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Delaware

Responses n

No response 2 17%

Yes 2 7

No 8 67%

Total 12 101%

TABLE C78

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Delaware

Responses n__

No response 0 0%

Yes 9 75%

No 3 25%

Total 12 100%

TABLE C79

No Public Access - Why - Delaware
Question 9A

Responses n %

No Response 9 75%

No Interest 0 0%

No Equipment 1 8%

No Room 2 17%

Total 12 100%

TABLE C80

Question # 10 - Hardware - Delaware

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 2 17%

No 10 83%

Total 12 100%



118

TABLE C81

Question # 11 - Software - Delaware

Responses n %_

No response 2 17%

Yes 1 8%

No 9 75%

TotaL 12 100%

TABLE C82

Question # 12 & 13 - Training Delaware

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 0 0 0%

Yes 9 10 83%

No 3 2 17%

TotaL 12 12 100%

TABLE C83

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Delaware

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 2 M _ 1 8%

Yes 7 58% 3 25%

No 3 25% 8 67%

Totat 12 100% 12 100%



119

TABLE C84

Delaware
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent,_5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR TotaLs
Acrss

16. Browse - Author, 3 3 2 2 1 1 12
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 25% 25% 17% 17% 8% 8% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 3 3 4 1 1 0 12
level of searching.

%25% 25% 33% 8% 8% 0% 99%

18. Boolean 1 1 4 3 1 2 12

% 8% 8% 33% 25% 8% 17% 99%

19. Keyword 2 4 4 2 0 0 12

% 17% 33% 33% 17% 0% 0% 100%

20. Wildcard 2 0 2 5 0 3 12

% 17% 0% 17% 42% 0% 25% 101%

21. Searching 1 7 3 1 0 0 12

% 8% 58% 25% 8% 0% 0% 99%

22. Speed 3 2 5 1 0 1 12

%25% 17% 42% 8% 0% 8% 100%

23. Directions 3 8 0 1 0 0 12

%_25% 67% 0% 8% 0% 0% 100%

24. Manual 1 3 4 1 0 3 12

% 8% 25% 33% 8% 0% 25% 99%

25. Screens 4 5 2 0 1 0 12

% 33% 42% 17% 0% 8% 0% 100%

26. Changing Discs 1 0 3 0 0 8 12

%8% 0% 25% 0% 0% 67% 100%

Total # per category 24 36 33 17 4 18 12

Average Percentage of 18% 27% 25% 13% 3% 14% 100%
each category

Average of each 2 3 3 2 0 2
category



120

TABLE C85

Delaware
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 1 21 3 4 51 NR Totals
Descriptor jI__I _ j j _I __I__ I__ Across
27. ILL 0 8 4 0 0 0 12
incoming

% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100%

28. ILL 0 7 4 0 1 0 12
outgoing

% 0% 58% 33% 0% 8% 0% 99%

29. Fill Rate 0 3 5 3 1 0 12

% 0% 25% 42% 25% 8% 0% 100%

30. Blind 0 3 2 3 0 4 12
Searches
received

% 0% 25% 17% 25% 0% 33% 100%

TABLE C86

Question # 31 - Delaware

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

1 0 
1 5 

5 12

8% 0% 8% 42% 42% 100%

TABLE C87

Delaware
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other No Total
rks Service #

32. Prior 0 6 0 9 7 0 1 1 24

% 0% 25% 0% 38% 29% 0% 4% 4% 100%

33. After 1 7 0 10 6 7 1 0 32

% 3% 22% 0% 31% 19% 22% 3% 0% 100%

Percentage 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% 0% 1% 0% 75%
Increase/decrease



121

TABLE C88

Questions # 34 & 35 - DeLaware

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing J incoming outgoing
3 3 No Response 1 1
4 2 <10 3 1
0 2 10-20 2 3
4 3 21-44 2 3
0 1 45-75 3 1
0 0 76-100 0 2
0 1 101-350 1 1
1 0351-500 0 0
0 0 500-1000 0 0
0 0 1001+ 0 0
12 12 Totat Responses 12 12

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C89

Question # 36 - Detaware

Response n %

No Response 4 36%

Automation Plans 0 0%

CataLoging 0 0%
Collection Devetopment 0 0%

Ease of use 00%

ILL Printed Forms 0 0%

Location toot 3 27%

Reference use 0 0%

Searching 4 36%

Verification 0 0%

11 99%



122

TABLE C90

Delaware
Improvements needed

Question_#_37

Responses: n %
No Responses 1 6%

Authority control 1 6%

Changing Discs 0 0%

Cleanup 1 6%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

Division of database other than by dates 0 0%

E-Mail 2 13%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 1 6%

Need more libraries inputting records 2 13%

Periodical add 1 6%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%
Searching - save search terms & que between 0 0%
discs

Speed 0 0%

Updating more often & consistently 7 44%

16 100%

TABLE C91

Question # 38 - Delaware
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n

No Response 0 0%

No 1 %_8

Yes 11 %92

12 100%



123

TABLE C92

Delaware
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n _ _

No Responses 0 0%
Accuracy in Database 2 10%
Automation Services to all libraries 1 5%
Continuing Education 2 10%
Continue with current projects 0 0%
Fult text deliver 1 5%
Funding 0 0%
Improve ILL delivery system 2 10%
Keep Database updated 3 15%
Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 2 10%
Statewide Borrowing Agreement 0 0%
Statewide database 2 10%

Statewide electronic mail system 2 10%
Establish statewide circuLation system 3 15%
Totals 20 100%

Table C93

Delaware
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %
No Responses 11 85%
50 yrs behind the times 1 8%
No schooL bib records in database 1 8%

13 101%



124

Responses from Iowa: Tables C94 to C116.

TABLE C94

Question # 1: Title of Respondent

Title: n %

Director, Head Librarian 9 56%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 1 6%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%
Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist 2 13%

Assistant - Associate Director 2 13%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

System Operator 0 0%

Reference Librarian 0 0%

Name 1 6%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 1 6%
Head, Collection Development 0 0%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

16 100%



125

TABLE C95

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Iowa

Type Number Percentage

Public 9 60%

Academic 1 7%
School 5 33%

SpeciaL 2 13%
TotaLs: 15 100%

TABLE C96

Size of Collections - Iowa
Responses: n % of users
Under 25,000 11 65%
25,001 - 50,000 2 12%
50,001 - 100,000 1 6%
100,001 - 250,000 0 0%
Over 250,000 2 12%
Not Responsive 1 6%

Total 17 101%

TABLE C97

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - Iowa
Description Number %
Interlibrary loan 16 59.3%
Public Access 6 22.2%
Backup 1 3.7%
Cataloging / Acquisitions 2 7.4%
Collection Development 2 7.4%
Other 0 0.0%

[ 27.____100.0%_______



126

TABLE C98

Questions #5 & 6 - Iowa - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide Database Interlibrary loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 3 18% 3 16%

Less than10 0 0% 0 0%

10 to 19 4 24% 4 21%

20 to29 1 6% 1 5%

30 - 44 6 35% 1 5%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0%

60 - 119 1 6% 6 32%

120 - 179 1 6% 1 5%

180 - 239 0 0% 0 0%

240 - 299 0 0% 1 5%

300 + 0 0% 1 5%

Other 1 6% 1 5%

Total 17 101% 19 99%

TABLE C99

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Iowa

Staff n %

No Response 0 %0

Interlibrary loan 9 30%

Reference 4 13%

Technical Services 3 10%

Director 11 37%

Other 3 10%

Total 30 100%



127

TABLE C100

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Iowa

Responses n

No response 1 6%

Yes 11 65%

No 5 29%

TotaL 17 100%

TABLE C101

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Iowa

Responses n

No response 0 0%

Yes 11 65%

No 6 35%

TotaL 17 100%

TABLE C102

No PubLic Access - Why - Iowa
Question 9A

Responses n %

No Response 11 61%

No Interest 1 6%

No Equipment 5 28%

No Room 1 6%

Total 18 101%

TABLE C103

Question # 10 - Hardware - Iowa

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 2 12%

No 15 88%

TotaL 17 100%



128

TABLE C104

Question # 11 - Software - Iowa

Responses n %

No response 1 6%

Yes 8 47%

No 8 47%/,

Total 17 100%

TABLE C105

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - Iowa

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training _I

No response 0 0 0%

Yes 12 14 82%

No 5 3 18%

Total 17 17 100%

TABLE C106

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Iowa

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 1 6% 0 0%

Yes 14 82% 5 29%

No 2 12% 12 71%

TotaL 17 100% 17 100%



129

TABLE C107

Iowa
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Exceltent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Across

16. Browse - Author, 0 2 4 1 8 2 17
Title, or Subject
Searches.

%_0% 12% 24% 6% 47% 12% 101%

17. Express - Advanced 0 1 7 1 6 2 17
Level of searching.

% 0% 6% 41% 6% 35% 12% 100%

18. Boolean 0 2 1 0 7 6 16

% 0% 13% 6% 0% 44% 38% 101%

19. Keyword 1 1 2 2 7 4 17

%_6% 6% 12% 12% 41% 24% 101%

20. Witdcard 0 0 1 1 9 6 17

%_0% 0% 6% 6% 53% 35% 100%

21. Searching 0 4 3 5 5 0 17

%_0% 24% 18% 29% 29% 0% 100%

22. Speed 1 4 9 1 2 0 17

% 6% 24% 53% 6% 12% 0% 101%

23. Directions 1 6 6 1 3 0 17

%_6% 35% 35% 6% 18% 0% 100%

24. Manual 2 2 4 0 6 3 17

%_12% 12% 24% 0% 35% 18% 101%

25. Screens 4 3 7 2 1 0 17

% 24% 18% 41% 12% 6% 0% 101%

26. Changing Discs 3 5 2 0 1 6 17

%_18% 29% 12% 0% 6% 35% 100%

Total # per category 12 30 46 14 55 29 17

Average Percentage of 7% 16% 25% 8% 30% 16% 102%
each category

Average of each 1 3 4 1 5 3
category



130

TABLE C108

Iowa
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1= increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Descriptor Across

27. ILL 5 5 4 1 1 1 17
incoming

% 29% 29% 24% 6% 6% 6% 100%

28. ILL 3 4 8 0 0 2 17
outgoing

% 18% 24% 47% 0% 0% 12% 101%

29. FiLL Rate 4 6 4 1 0 2 17

%_24% 35% 24% 6% 0% 12% 101%

30. Blind 1 2 6 2 0 6 17
Searches
received

% 6% 12% 35% 12% 0% 35% 100%

TABLE C109

Question # 31 - Iowa

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

2 2 3 5 5 17

12% 12% 8% 29% 29% 100%

TABLE C110

Iowa
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other No Total
rks Service #

32. Prior 4 8 0 6 8 5 2 3 36

% 11% 22% 0% 17% 22% 14% 6% 8% 100%

33. After 4 3 0 11 6 12 2 0 38

% 11% 8% 0% 29% 16% 32% 5% 0% 101%

Percentage 1% -0% %?? -2% -1% 2% 1% 0 95%
Increase/decrease

Fr
I



131

TABLE C111

Questions # 34 & 35 - Iowa

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

6 6 No Response 5 6

11 9 <10 4 5
0 1 10-20 4 5
1 0 21-44 1 1
0 0 45-75 1 0

0 0 76-100 0 0

1 1 101-350 1 0

0 0 351-500 0 0
0 0 500-1000 0 0

0 0 1001+ 1 0
19 17 Total Responses 17 17

Percentage increase / 9% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C112

Question # 36 - Iowa

Response n %
No Response 9 56%

Automation Plans 0 0%

Cataloging 0 0%

Collection Development 0 0%

Ease of use 0 0%

ILL Printed Forms 0 0%

Location tooL 7 44%

Reference use 0 0%

Searching 0 0%

Verification 0 0%

I-16 100%



TABLE C113

Iowa
Improvements needed

Question_#_37

Responses: n %
No Responses 8 38%

Authority control 1 5%

Changing Discs 0 0%

Cleanup 1 5%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 1 5%

Division of database other than by dates 0 0%

E-Mail 1 5%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titLes 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 2 10%

Periodical add 1 5%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%

Searching - save search terms & que between 3 14%
discs

Speed 2 10%

Updating more often & consistently i 5%

_21 102%

TABLE C114

Question # 38 - Iowa
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %
No Response 5 29%

No 6 %35

Yes 6 %35

17 99%

132



133

TABLE C115

Iowa
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 7 33%

Accuracy in Database 2 10%

Automation Services to all libraries 1 5%

Continuing Education 1 5%

Continue with current projects 1 5%

FulL text deLiver 0 0%

Funding 1 5%

Improve ILL delivery system 1 5%

Keep Database updated 1 5%

Make system easer to use 4 19%

Retrospective Conversion 0 0%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 0 0%

Statewide database 2 10%

Statewide electronic mail system 0 0%
EstabLish statewide circulation system 0 0%

TotaLs 21 102%

Table C116

Iowa
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 14 82%

Look forward to getting new vendor 2 12%

Needcataloging tool 1 6%

_______________________________ 17 100%



134

Responses from Maryland: Tables C117 to C139.

TABLE C117

Question # 1: Title of Respondent

Title: n %

Director, Head Librarian 6 46%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 2 15%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 1 8%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist 0 0%

Assistant - Associate Director 3 23%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

System Operator 0 0%

Reference Librarian 0 0%

Name o 0%
Bibliographic SpeciaList 1 8%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Head, Collection Development 0 0%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

13 100%



135

TABLE C118

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Maryland

Type Number Percentage

Public 9 56%

Academic 3 19%

School 2 13%

Special 2 13%

Totals: 16 101%

TABLE C119

Size of CoLlections - MaryLand

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 2 13%

25,001 - 50,000 2 13%

50,001 - 100,000 6 38%

100,001 - 250,000 2 13%

Over 250,000 4 25%

Not Responsive 0 0%

Total 16 102%

TABLE C120

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - MaryLand

Description Number %

InterLibrary Loan 16 35.6%

Public Access 4 8.9%

Backup 7 15.67

CataLoging / Acquisitions 11 24.4%

ColLection DeveLopment 7 15.6%

Other 0 0.0%

451100.1%



136

TABLE C121

Questions #5 & 6 - Maryland - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide Database Interlibrary loan

Minutes n % n

0 or no response 4 25% 1 6%
Less than10 0 0% 0 0%

10 to19 0 0% 0 0%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0%

30 - 44 3 19% 1 6%

45 - 59 0 0% 1 6%

60 - 119 1 6% 1 6%

120 - 179 1 6% 1 6%
180 - 239 2 13% 1 6%

240 - 299 2 13% 2 13%

300 + 3 19% 8 50%

Other 0 0% 0 0%
Total 16 101% 16 99%

TABLE C122

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Maryland

Staff n

No Response 0_%0

Interlibrary loan 13 27%

Reference 15 31%
Technical Services 7 15%

Director 6 13%

Extension Services 5 10
Other 2 4%

Total 48 100%



137

TABLE C123

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Maryland

Responses n

No response 0 0%
Yes 11 69%

No 5 31%
Total 16 100%

TABLE C124

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Maryland

Responses n %
No response 0 0%
Yes 

15 
94%

No1 
6%

Total 16 100%

TABLE C125

No Public Access - Why - Maryland
Question 9A

Responses n

No Response 15 94
No Interest 0 0%
No Equipment 0 0%

No CD-ROM extensions 1 6%
Total 16 100.

TABLE C126

Question # 10 - Hardware - Maryland

Responses n %
No response 0 0%
Yes 3 19%

13 81%

Total 16100%



138

TABLE C127

Question # 11 - Software - Maryland

Responses n %
No response 0 0%

Yes 3 19%
No 13 81%
TotaL 16 100%

TABLE C128

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - Maryland

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 2 0 0%
Yes 9 11 73%

No 5 4 27%
TotaL 16 15 100%

TABLE C129

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Maryland

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need
Training

No response 4 25% 0 0%
Yes 11 69% 3 19%
No 1 6% 13 81%

Total 16 100% 16 100%



139

TABLE C130

Maryland
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 12 3 4 5 NR Totals
1111111Across

16. Browse - Author, 2 5 5 2 0 2 16
Title, or Subject
Searches.

%13% 31% 31% 13% 0% 13% 101%

17. Express - Advanced 2 3 4 0 0 2 11
Level of searching.

%18% 27% 36% 0% 0% 18% 99%

18. Boolean 0 2 1 3 3 2 11

% 0% 18% 9% 27% 27% 18% 99%

19. Keyword 0 4 8 2 0 1 15

%0% 27% 53% 13% 0% 7% 100%

20. Wildcard 0 1 3 0 4 4 12

% 0% 8% 25% 0% 33% 33% 99%
21. Searching 3 7 4 0 0 2 16

%19% 44% 25% 0% 0% 13% 101%

22. Speed 3 5 3 4 0 1 16

%19% 31% 19% 25% 0% 6% 100%

23. Directions 3 9 3 0 0 1 16

%19% 56% 19% 0% 0% 6% 100%

24. Manual 0 5 5 1 1 1 13

%0% 38% 38% 8% 8% 8% 100%

25. Screens 2 11 3 0 0 1 17

%12% 65% 18% 0% 0% 6% 101%

26. Changing Discs 0 4 6 1 0 1 12

%0% 33% 50% 8% 0% 8% 99%

Total # per category 15 56 45 13 8 18 14

Average Percentage of 9% 34% 29% 9% 6% 12% 99%
each category

Average of each 1 5 4 1 1 2
category



140

TABLE C131

Maryland
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 increased, 5 decreased.

Qusin# & 1 f2 131 4 5 NR ITotals
Dsrpor j____j____I II___ ____ Across

27. ILL 4 4 7 1 0 0 16
incoming

%1 25% 25% 44% 6% 0% 0% 100%

28. ILL 4 6 6 0 0 0 16
outgoing

%_25% 38% 38% 0% 0% 0% 101%

29. Fill Rate 0 3 10 1 1 0 15

%_0% 20% 67% 7% 7% 0% 101%

30. Blind 0 1 7 3 0 3 14
Searches
received

% 0% 7% 50% 21% 0% 21% 99%

TABLE C132

Question # 31 - Maryland

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

0 0 3 5 8 16

0% 0% 19% 31% 50% 100%

TABLE C133

Maryland
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other No Total
rks Service #

32. Prior 3 7 0 8 8 3 7 0 36

% 8% 19% 0% 22% 22% 8% 19% 0% 98%

33. After 3 6 0 7 8 9 6 1 40

%_8% 15% 0% 18% 20% 23% 15% 3% 102%

Percentage %1 -1% 0% -1% -1% %3 1% -3% 90%
Increase/decrease



141

TABLE C134

Questions # 34 & 35 - Maryland

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

5 5 No Response 3 3

4 4 <10 1 1

0 0 10-20 1 1

0 2 21-44 1 0

1 0 45-75 2 1

1 0 76-100 0 2

1 2 101-350 2 2

1 1 351-499 1 0

0 1 500-1000 1 2

3 1 1001+ 4 4

16 16 Total Responses 16 16

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C135

Question # 36 - Maryland

Response n %

No Response 3 12%

Automation Plans 2 8%

Cataloging 1 4%

Collection Development 1 4%

Ease of use 6 24%

ILL Forms 2 8%

Location tool 3 12%

Reference use 2 8%

Searching 5 20%

Verification 0 0%

25 100%



TABLE C136

MaryLand
Improvements needed

Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 4 13%

Authority control 1 3%

Add Boolean & Keyword searching to software 7 23%

Cleanup 0 0%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

Get everybody on-Line 3 10%

Item Location 2 6%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more Libraries inputting records 0 0%

Periodical add 0 0%

put limits on ILL materials Loaned 2 6%

Searching - save search terms & que between 5 16%
discs

Speed 0 0%

Updating more often & consistently - CD-ROM 7 23%
versions.

31 100%

TABLE C137

11
Responses: n %

No Response 5 31%

No 0 00

Yes 11 %69

16 100%

142

Question # 38 - Maryland
Meet the users needs?

11



143

TABLE C138

Maryland
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 11%

Accuracy in Database 2 11%

Automation Services to all Libraries 1 5%

Continuing Education 1 5%

Continue with current projects 0 0%

Full text deliver 0 0%

Funding 4 21%

Improve ILL delivery system 2 11%

Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 1 5%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 1 5%

Statewide database 1 5%

Statewide electronic mail system 1 5%

Establish statewide circulation system 3 16%

Totals 19 100%

Table C139

Maryland
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 11 79%

Database in three formats 2 14%

Most libraries use CD-ROM 1 7%

14 100%



144

Responses from Missouri: Tables C140
Table C140

to C161

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Missouri

Type Number Percentage

Academic 29 31%

Public 60 64%

School 2 2%

Special 3 3%

Totals: 94 100%

Table C141

Size of Collections

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 23 24.5%

25,001 - 50,000 30 32%

50,001 - 100,000 20 21.5%

100,001 - 250,000 15 16%

Over 250,000 5 5%

Total 94 100%

Table C142

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4

Description Number

Backup 9 5.6%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 38 23.8%

Collection Development 14 8.8%

Interlibrary loan 92 57.5%

Public Access 5 3.1%

Reference 2 1.3%

160 100%

Table C143

Question # 9 - Public Access?

Responses n %

No response 2 2%

Yes 14 14%

No 80 84%

Total 94 100%



145

Table C144

Public use of the Statewide database - Question # 9

Responses: n %

PubLic did use. 12I 7%

Public did not use 80 49%_

Afraid of damage 8 5%

No Room 19 12%

No equipment 45127%

164 100%

Table C145

Questions #5 & 6 - Amount of tim spend daily on:

Statewide Database Interlibrary loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 14 15% 11 11.7%

Less than 10 11 12% 7 7.5%

10 to 19 15 16% 7 7.5%

20 to 29 9 10% 7 7.5%

30 14 15% 14 14.9%

45 3 3% 4 4.3%

60 19 20% 16 17.0%

120 2 2% 8 8.5%

180 3 3% 4 4.3%

240 2 2% 5 5.3%

300 1 1% 10 10.6%

Other 1 1% 1 1.1%

Total 94 J1 100% 94 100%



146

Table C146

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database

Staff n %

No Response 2 1%

Interlibrary loan 70 38%

Director 49 26%

Assistant Director 2 1%

Reference 31 17%

Technical Services 27 15%

Other 5 3%

Total 186 100%

Table C147

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment

Responses n

No response 3 3%

Yes 54 58%

No 37 39%

Total 94 100%

Table C148

Question # 10 - Hardware

Responses n__

No response 3 3%

Yes 8 9%

No 83 88%

Total 94 100%

Table C149

Question # 11 - Software

Responses n %

No response 5 5%

Yes 20 21%

No 69 74%

Total 94 100%



147

Table C150

Question # 12 & 13 - Training

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training _I _-II

No response 0 4 4%

Yes 94 75 80%

No 0 15 16%

TotaL 94 94 100%

Table C151

Questions 14 & 15 - Training

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 21 22% 4 4%

Yes 66 71% 14 15%

No 7 7% 76 81%

Total 94 100% 94 100%



148

Table C152

Importance / Quality / Usefulness
1 = Excelent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Across

16. Browse - Author, 29 27 23 5 4 6 94
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 31% 29% 24% 5% 4% 6% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 17 33 23 11 5 5 94
level of searching.

% 18% 35% 24% 12% 5% 5% 100%

18. Boolean 2 19 30 9 4 30 94

% 2% 20% 32% 10% 4% 32% 100%

19. Keyword 11 22 32 11 6 12 94

% 12% 23% 34% 12% 6% 13% 100%

20. WiLdcard 1 17 25 11 6 34 94

% 1% 18% 27% 12% 6% 36% 100%

21. Searching 15 37 32 3 3 4 94

% 16% 39% 34% 3% 3% 4% 100%

22. Speed 4 4 21 31 18 16 94

% 4% 4% 22% 33% 19% 17% 100%

23. Directions 19 28 35 7 2 3 94

% 20% 30% 37% 7% 2% 3% 100%

24. Manual 8 18 40 14 3 11 94

%_9% 19% 43% 15% 3% 12% 100%

25. Screens 19 33 32 6 1 3 94

% 20% 35% 34% 6% 1% 3% 100%

26. Changing Discs 5 18 42 11 15 3 94

% 5% 19% 45% 12% 16% 3% 100%

Total # per category 130 256 335 119 67 127 94

Average Percentage of 13% 25% 32% 12% 6% 12%
each category

Average of each 12 23 30 11 6 12
category



149

Table C153

Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 = increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals

27. ILL 10 33 41 6 0 4 94
incoming

% 11% 35% 44% 6% 0% 4% 100%

28. ILL 9 36 40 5 0 4 94
outgoing

% 10% 38% 43% 5% 0% 4% 100%

29. Fill Rate 14 38 35 3 0 4 94

% 15% 40% 37% 3% 0% 4% 100%

30. Blind 3 6 42 16 9 18 94
Searches
received

% 3% 6% 45% 17% 10% 19% 100%

Table C154

Question # 31

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

5 17 13 15 44 94

5% 18% 14% 16% 47% 100%

Table C155

Questions # 32 & 33,
Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other None Total
rks #

32. Prior 21 75 8 57 40 5 1 1 208

% 10% 36% 4% 27% 19% 2% 0% 0% 100%

33. After 67 72 50 22 37 25 3 1 277

24% 26% 18% 8% 13% 9% 1 0% 100%

Percentage 3% -1% 6% -39% -1% 5% 3% 0% 0%

Increase/decrease



150

Table C156

Questions $ 34 & 35

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

40 32 No Service 24 17

43% 34% Percentage of respondents 26% 18%
giving no ILL service.

Percent Decrease of no 60% 53%
service

1 1 No Response 10 0

21 26 <10 32 29

12 11 10-20 7 23

7 9 21-44 7 7

5 6 45-75 2 7

0 2 76-100 0 3

3 5 101-350 6 5

1 1 351-500 1 0

10 500-1000 2 2

3 _ 11001+ 3 1

54 62Total Responses 70 77

Percentage increase / 13% 13%
Decrease of ILL

Table C157

Question # 36

Response n %

No Response 26 23%

Author/Title index 22 19%

Cataloging 4 4%

Ease of use 7 6%

Location tool 18 16%

Reference use 5 4%

Searching 27 24%

SeriaLs 4 4%

113 100%



151

Table C158

Improvements needed
Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 26 24%

Authority control 4 4%

Changing Discs 9 9%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 14 13%

Exiting 3 2.5%

Help Screens 2 2%

Need more libraries inputting records 5 5%

Periodical disc 2 2%

Searching 9 8.5%

Software 5 5%

Speed 16 15%

Updating more often & consistently 10 10%

105 100%

Table C159

Question # 38
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 14 15%

No 5 5%

Yes 75 80%

94 100%



152

Table C160

Question # 39
Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 45 33%

Accuracy in Database 4 3%

Automation Services to all Libraries 8 6%

Continuing Education 8 6%

Continue with current projects 8 6%

Fax machines in every Library 2 1%

Full text online databases 4 3%

Funding 8 6%

Improve ILL delivery system 3 2%

Keep Database updated 4 3%

Make system easer to use 5 4%

More consultants 2 1%

On-Line systems 6 4%

Retrospective Conversion 9 7%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 2 1%

Statewide database 8 6%

Statewide electronic mail system 3 2%

Switch to OCLC 3 2%

Vendor - change 1 1%

Out of print materials 1 1%

Directory of libraries 1 1%

Establish statewide circuLation system 1 1%

Sub-totals 129 94

TotaLs 136 100%



153

Table C161

Question # 40
Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 90 93%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 2 2%

Centralized billing for ILL 2 2%

Reimbursement for ILL net lenders 1 1%

More training is needed in automation 2 2%

97 100%



154

Responses from Pennsylvania: Tables C162 to C183.

Table C162

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Pennsylvania

Type Number Percentage

Academic 2 4%

Public 10 21%

School 34 72%

Special 1 2%

Totals: 47 100%

Table C163

Size of Cotlections

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 32 68%

25,001 - 50,000 11 23%

50,001 - 100,000 1 2%

100,001 - 250,000 1 2%

Over 250,000 0 0%

Not Responsive 2 4%

Total 47 100%

Table C164

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4

Description Number

Backup 11 8%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 35 27%

Collection Development 17 13%

Interlibrary loan 45 34%

Public Access 21 16%

Reference - Other 3 2%

132 100%



155

Table C165

Questions #5 & 6 - Amount of time spend daiLy on:

Statewide Database InterLibrary Loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 1 2% 3 6%

Less than10 0 0% 0 0%

10 to19 2 4% 7 15%

20 to 29 3 6% 4 9%

30 - 44 4 9% 9 19%

45 - 59 2 4% 3 6%

60 - 119 9 19% 10 21%

120 - 179 14 30% 6 13%

180 - 239 4 9% 0 0%

240 - 299 1 2% 2 4%

300 + 5 11% 1 2%

Other 2 4% 2 4%

TotaL 47 100% 47 99%

Table C166

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database

Staff n %

No Response 0 0%

Intertibrary Loan 28 29%

Director 32 34%

Assistant Director 0 0%

Reference 14 15%

TechnicaL Services 8 8%

Other 13 14%

Total 95 100%



156

Table C167

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment

Responses n %

No response 1 2%

Yes 25 53%

No 21 45%

Total 47 100%

Table C168

Question # 9 - Public Access?

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 40 85%

No 7 15%

Total 47 100%

Table C169

No PubLic Access - Why
Question 9A

Responses n %

No Response 0 0%

No Interest 1 14%

No Equipment 3 43%

No Room 3 43%

TotaL 7 100%

Table C170

Question # 10 - Hardware

Responses n %

No response 1 2%

Yes 8 17%

No 38 81%

Total 47 100%



157

Table C171

Question_#_11 - Software

Responses n %

No response 1 2%

Yes 2 4%

No 44 94%

TotaL 47 100%

Table C172

Question # 12 & 13 - Training

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 0 1 2%

Yes 47 46 98%

No 0 0 0%

Total 47 47 100%

Table C173

Questions 14 & 15 - Training

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training _

No response 1 2% 0 0%
Yes 44 94% 10 21%

No 2 4% 37 79%

TotaL 47 100% 47 100%



158

Table C174

Importance / Quality / Usefulness
1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Across

16. Browse - Author, 15 17 13 1 1 0 47
Title, or Subject
Searches.

%32% 36% 28% 2% 2% 0% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 31 12 2 1 0 1 47
level of searching.

%66% 26% 4% 2% 0% 2% 100%

18. Boolean 15 14 14 1 0 3 47

%_32% 30% 30% 2% 0% 6% 100%

19. Keyword 25 14 6 2 0 0 47

%_53% 30% 13% 4% 0% 0% 100%

20. WiIdcard 13 13 14 2 1 4 47

% 28% 28% 30% 4% 2% 9% 101%
21. Searching 20 22 4 0 0 1 47

%_43% 47% 9% 0% 0% 2% 101%

22. Speed 5 15 17 6 3 1 47

% 11% 32% 36% 13% 6% 2% 100%
23. Directions 14 18 12 2 0 1 47

%_30% 38% 26% 4% 0% 2% 100%

24. Manual 9 21 15 0 0 2 47
%_19% 45% 32% 0% 0% 4% 100%

25. Screens 15 24 7 0 0 1 47

% 32% 51% 15% 0% 0% 2% 100%
26. Changing Discs 7 17 15 6 0 2 47

% 15% 36% 32% 13% 0% 4% 100%
Total # per category 169 187 119 21 5 16 47
Average Percentage of 33% 36% 23% 4% 1% 3% 100%
each category

Average of each 15 17 11 2 0 1
category



159

Table C175

Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.
1 = increased, decreased.

Question#& 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Descriptor 

Across

27. ILL 25 15 4 1 0 2 47
incoming

%_53% 32% 9% 2% 0% 4% 100%

28. ILL 22 13 8 2 0 2 47
outgoing

%_47% 28% 17% 4% 0% 4% 100%

29. Fill Rate 12 18 9 2 1 5 47

%_26% 38% 19% 4% 2% 11% 100%

30. Blind 3 3 18 7 6 10 47
Searches
received

% 6% 6% 38% 15% 13% 21% 99%

Table C176

Question # 31

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #
10 4 1 7 25 47

21% 9% 2% 15% 53% 100%

Table C177

Questions # 32 & 33,
Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other Total
rks

32. Prior 4 26 0 16 16 6 13 81

%_5% 32% 0% 20% 20% 7% 16% 100%

33. After 3 41 0 26 25 28 3 126

%_2% 33% 0% 21% 20% 22% 2% 100%

Percentage 1% -2% 0% -2% -2% 5% 0% 64%
Increase/decrease



160

Table C178

Questions_$_34_&_35

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

24 21 No Service 2 4
51% 45% Percentage of respondents 2% 4%

giving noILL service.

Percent Decrease of no -83% -19%
service

4 4 No Response 6 4
12 14 <10 8 10
2 6 10-20 21 12
2 3 21-44 5 9
0 0 45-75 3 5
0 0 76-100 1 0
1 1 101-350 0 2
0 0 351-500 0 0
1 0 500-1000 1 0
0 0 1001+ 0 0
22 28 Total Responses 45 42

Percentage increase / 20% 15%
Decrease of ILL

Table C179

Question # 36

Response n %

No Response 7 8%

Automation Plans 1 1%

CataLoging 6 7%

ColLection Development 1 1%

Ease of use 5 6%

ILL Printed Forms 9 10%

Location tooL 21 24%

Reference use 1 1%

Searching 15 17%

Verification 22 25%

88 100%



161

Table C180

Improvements needed
Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 9 13%

Authority controL 2 3%

Changing Discs 1 1%

CLeanup 6 9%

CumuLative printing of screens or search 3 5%

Division of database other than by dates 3 4%

E-MaiL 2 3%

Errors - dupLicate records - muLtipLe titLes 15 22%

Need more Libraries inputting records 3 5%

Periodical add 2 3%

RefusaL to Loan materiaLs 5 7%

Searching - save search terms & que between 3 4%
discs

Speed 11 16%

Updating more often & consistentLy 3 5%

68 100%

Table CI81

Question # 38
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 10 21%

No 0 %0

Yes 37 %79

47 100%



162

Table C182

Question # 39
Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 14 18%

Accuracy in Database 4 5%

Automation Services to alL Libraries 2 3%

Continuing Education 1 1%

Continue with current projects 4 5%

Full text deLiver 4 5%

Funding 14 18%

Improve ILL delivery system 2 3%

Keep Database updated 3 4%

Make system easer to use 2 3%

Retrospective Conversion 6 8%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 8 10%

Statewide database 4 5%

Statewide electronic mail system 6 8%

Establish statewide circulation system 3 4%

TotaLs 77 100%

Table C183

Question # 40
Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 36 88%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 1 2%

Reimbursement for ILL net tenders 4 10%

41 100%



163

Responses from North Dakota: Tables C184 to C206.

TABLE C184

Title: Question # 1: Title of Respondent - N.D. n _%

Assistant - Associate Director 1 9%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 6 55%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection Development 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 0 0%

Name 1 90

Reference Librarian 3 27%

System Operator 0 0%

No Response 0 0%

11 100%



164

TABLE C185

Type Number Percentage

Public 2 18%

Academic 6 55%

School 0 0%

Special 3 27%

Totals: 11 100%

TABLE C186

Size of Collections - N.D.

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 3 27.3%

25,001 - 50,000 1 9.1%

50,001 - 100,000 3 27.3%

100,001 - 250,000 2 18.2%

over 250,000 2 18.2%

Not Responsive 0 0.0%

Total 11 100.1%

TABLE C187

Uses of the Statewide database - Question f4-NI.D.

Description Number 0%

Interlibrary loan 10 27%

Public Access 10 27%

Backup 2 5%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 9 24%

Collection Development 5 14%

Reference - Other 1 3%

371100%

Res ondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - N.D.



165

TABLE C188

Questions #5 & 6 - N.D. - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide databasee [ InterLibrary Loan

Minutes n % n %

0 or no response 2 18% 2 20.0%

Less than 10 0 0% 0 0.0%

10 to 19 1 9% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 1 9% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 1 9% 0 0.0%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 0 0% 0 0.0%

120 - 179 1 9% 1 10.0%

180 - 239 0 0% 10.0%

240 - 299 0 0% 3 30.0%

300 + 5 45% 3 30.0%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

TotaL 11 99%10 100.0%

TABLE C189

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database-NI.D.

Staff n %

InterLibrary Loan 11 25.0%

Reference 10 22.7%

Technical Services 9 20.5%

Director 9 20.5%

Extension Services staff 3 6.8%

Other 2 4.6%

No Response 0 0.0%

Total 44 100.1%



166

TABLE C190

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - N.D.

Responses n %

No response 0 0.0%

Yes 8 72.7%

No 3 27.3%

Total 11 100.0%

TABLE C191

Question # 9 - Public Access? - N.D.

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 8 73%

No 3 27%

Total 11 100%

TABLE C192

No Public Access - Why - N.D.
Question_9A

Responses n %

No Response 9 82%

No Interest 0 0%

No Equipment 2 18%

Difficulty of use 0 0

Staff use onLy 0 0

No Room 0 0%

Total 11 100%

TABLE C193

Question # 10 - Hardware - N.D.

Responses n %

No response 1 9%

Yes 3 27%

No 7 64%

TotaL 11 100%



167

TABLE C194

Question # 11 - Software - N.D.

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 0 0%

No 9 50%

Not Applicable 9 50%

Total 18 100%

TABLE C195

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - N.D.

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 1 0 %10
Yes 4 8 73

No 6 3 %27

Total 11 11 100%

TABLE C196

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - N.D.

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 5 45% 1 9%

Yes 5 45% 6 55%

No 1 9% 4 36%

Total 11 99% 11 100%



168

TABLE C197

N.D.
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor____'

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
____ I_ I IAcross

16. Browse - Author, 5 3 2 1 0 0 11
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 45% 27% 18% 9% 0% 0% 99%

17. Express - Advanced 4 2 2 0 1 2 11
level of searching.

% 36% 18% 18% 0% 9% 18% 99%

18. Booean 5 2 1 1 0 2 11

% 45% 18% 9% 9% 0% 18% 99%

19. Keyword 6 1 1 0 1 2 11

%_55% 9% 9% 0% 9% 18% 100%

20. Witdcard 5 3 0 0 1 2 11

%45% 27% 0% 0% 9% 18% 99%

21. Searching 6 2 2 0 1 0 11

% 55% 18% 18% 0% 9% 0% 100%

22. Speed 4 5 1 1 0 0 11

%_36% 45% 9% 9% 0% 0% 99%

23. Directions 3 5 1 1 1 0 11

%_27% 45% 9% 9% 9% 0% 99%

24. Manual 2 2 2 3 0 2 11

% 18% 18% 18% 27% 0% 18% 99%

25. Screens 3 5 1 0 1 1 11

%27% 45% 9% 0% 9% 9% 99%

26. Changing Discs 0 0 0 0 0 11 11

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total # per category 43 30 13 7 6 22 11

Average Percentage of 35% 25% 11% 6% 5% 18% 100%
each category

Average of each 4 3 1 1 1 2
category



169

TABLE C198

N.D.
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 = increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Descriptor Across

27. ILL 7 1 2 0 0 1 11
incoming

% 64% 9% 18% 0% 0% 9% 100%

28. ILL 3 3 3 2 0 0 11
outgoing

% 27% 27% 27% 18% 0% 0% 99%

29. Fill Rate 2 2 5 1 0 1 11

% 18% 18% 45% 9% 0% 9% 99%

30. Blind 0 1 5 3 0 2 11
Searches
received

% 0% 9% 45% 27% 0% 18% 99%

TABLE C199

Question # 31 - N.D.

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

4 2 5 0 0 11

36% 18% 45% 0% 0% 99%

TABLE C200

N.D.
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks#

32. Prior 6 8 0 10 6 4 0 0 34

% 18% 24% 0% 29% 18% 12% 0% 0% 101%

33. After 6 6 0 10 6 5 1 0 34

% 18% 18% 0% 29% 18% 15% 3% 0% 101%

Percentage 1% -1% 0% -1% -1% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Increase/decrease



170

TABLE C201

Questions # 34 & 35 - N.D.

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

2 2 No Response 2 2

0 0 <10 0 0

1 0 10-20 0 0

0 2 21-44 1 0

2 0 45-75 0 1

0 1 76-100 0 1

5 5 101-350 6 6

0 0 351-500 1 0

1 1 500-1000 0 0

0 0 1001+ 1 1

11 11 TotaL Responses 11 11

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C202

Question # 36 - N.D.

Response n %

No Response 3 18%

Automation PLans 0 0%

CataLoging 3 18%

CoLLection DeveLopment 1 6%

Ease of use 2 12%

ILL Printed Forms 2 12%

Location tooL 1 6%

Reference use 2 12%

Searching 2 12%

Verification 1 6%

17 102%



TABLE C203

N.D.
Improvements needed

Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 3 21%

Authority control 0 0%

Acquisitions 2 14%

Circulation Procedures 2 14%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 1 7%

Division of database other than by dates 0 0%

Indexes to manuals, on screen instructions 3 21%

Errors -,duplicate records - muLtiple titles 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 1 7%

Periodicals add 1 7%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%

Searching - 1 7%

Speed 0 0%

Updating more often & consistently 0 0%

14 98%

TABLE

Question # 38 - N.D.
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 2 18%

No 2 %18

Yes 7 %64

11 100%

C204

171



172

TABLE C205

N.D.
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 4 31%

Accuracy in Database 0 0%

Automation Services to all Libraries 1 8%

Continuing Education 1 8%

Continue with current projects 0 0%

Full text deliver 0 0%

Funding 0 0%

Improve ILL delivery system 1 8%

Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 1 8%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 1 8%

Statewide database 3 23%

Statewide electronic mail system 0 %0

Establish statewide circulation system 1 8%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0%

Database management - Long range planning 0 0%

Totals 13 102%

TABLE C206

N.D.
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 10 91%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 0 0%

Funding for private Libraries 1 9%

If materials cost Less than $20, should not 0 0%
loan

Our library does not provide Ill services 0 0%

This is our main source of information about 0 0%
other libraries

11 100%



173

Responses from Ohio: Tables C207 to C229.

TABLE C207

fT e Question # 1: Title of Respondent - Ohio _n
Title: I nI %
Assistant - Associate Director 0 0%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 1 10%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 7 70%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection DeveLopment 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 1 10%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 1 10%

Library Clerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 0 0%

Name 0 0%

Reference Librarian 0 0%

System Operator 0 0%

No Response 0 0%

10 100%



174

TABLE C208

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Ohio

Type Number Percentage

Public 9 90%

Academi c 0 0%

School 0 0%

Special 1 10%

Totals: 10 100%

TABLE C209

Size of Collections - Ohio

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 0 0.0%

25,001 - 50,000 5 50.0%

50,001 - 100,000 2 20.0%

100,001 - 250,000 3 30.0%

over 250,000 0 0.0%

Not Responsive 0 0.0%

Total 10 100.0%

TABLE C210

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - Ohio

Description Number %

Interlibrary loan 9 50%

Public Access 2 11%

Backup 1 6%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 5 28%

Collection Development 1 6%

Reference - Other 0 0%

18 101%
I jMI



175

TABLE C211

Questions #5 & 6 - Ohio - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide DatabaseInterlibrary Loan

Minutes n % n%

0 or no response 1 10% 1 10.0%

Less than 10 1 10% 2 20.0%

10 to 19 2 20% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 3 30% 1 10.0%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 1 10% 1 10.0%

120 - 179 1 10% 4 40.0%

180 - 239 0 0% 1 10.0%

240 - 299 1 10% 0 0.0%

300 + 0 0% 0 0.0%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

Total 1010% 10 100.0%

TABLE C212

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Ohio

Staff n _%

Interlibrary loan 8 32.0%

Reference 2 8.0%

Technical Services 7 28.0%

Director 5 20.0%

Extension Services staff 1 4.0%

Other 1 4.0%

No Response 1 4.0%

Total 25 100.0%



176

TABLE C213

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Ohio

Responses n %

No response 0 0.0%

Yes 1 10.0%

No 9 90.0%

Total 10 100.0%

TABLE C214

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Ohio

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 0 0%

No 10 100%

Total 10 100%

TABLE C215,

No Public Access - Why - Ohio
Question 9A

ResponsesJ n1

No Response 3 30%

No Interest 1 10%

No Equipment 2 20%

Difficulty of use 1 10

Staff use only 0 0

No Room 3 30%

Total 10 100%

TABLE C216

Question # 10 - Hardware - Ohio

Responses nJ

No response 0 0%

Yes 2 20%

No 8 80%

Total 10 100%



177

TABLE C217

Question # 11 - Software - Ohio

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 3 15%

No 7 35%

Not ApplicabLe 10 50%

Total 20 100%

TABLE C218

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - Ohio

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 0 0 0%

Yes 10 8 80%

No 0 2 20%

Tot aL 10 10 100%

TABLE C219

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Ohio

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 3 27% 0 0%

Yes 6 55% 6 55%

No 2 18% 5 45%

Total 11 100% 11 100%



178

TABLE C220

Ohio
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

_____ = Excel tent, 5 = Poor ____ _________

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
II_ _ I_ IIIIAcross

16. Browse - Author, 4 2 2 1 0 1 10
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 40% 20% 20% 10% 0% 10% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 6 1 2 0 0 1 10
level of searching.

%60% 10% 20% 0% 0% 10% 100%

18. Boolean 1 3 2 1 1 2 10

%10% 30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 100%

19. Keyword 3 1 4 1 0 1 10

%30% 10% 40% 10% 0% 10% 100%

20. Wildcard 1 1 6 0 0 2 10

% 10% 10% 60% 0% 0% 20% 100%

21. Searching 2 5 2 0 0 1 10

%20% 50% 20% 0% 0% 10% 100%

22. Speed 1 4 4 0 0 1 10

%10% 40% 40% 0% 0% 10% 100%

23. Directions 2 1 5 1 0 1 10

% 20% 10% 50% 10% 0% 10% 100%

24. ManuaL 1 2 4 2 0 1 10

%10% 20% 40% 20% 0% 10% 100%

25. Screens 3 2 4 0 0 1 10

% 30% 20% 40% 0% 0% 10% 100%
26. Changing Discs 1 0 2 0 0 7 10

% 10% 0% 20% 0% 0% 70% 100%

Total # per category 25 22 37 6 1 19 10

Average Percentage of 23% 20% 34% 5% 1% 17% 100%
each category

Average of each 2 2 3 1 0 2
category



TABLE C221

Ohio
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1= increased, 5 decreased.

Q~sin#& 1 i 21 31 4 5 fNR Totals
Descriptor I___ .... A.......... ___I___ ___I Across

27. ILL 1 6 2 0 0 1 10
incoming

% 10% 60% 20% 0% 0% 10% 100%

28. ILL 0 3 4 2 0 1 10
outgoing

% 0% 30% 40% 20% 0% 10% 100%

29. Fill Rate 0 4 4 1 0 1 10

% 0% 40% 40% 10% 0% 10% 100%

30. Blind 0 0 6 1 0 4 11

Searches
received

% 0% 0% 55% 9% 0% 36% 100%

TABLE C222

Question # 31 - Ohio

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

3 4 0 3 0 10

30% 40% 0% 30% 0% 100%

179



180

TABLE C223

Ohio
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rksI - 1 6

32. Prior 0 6 0 4 4 6 1 2 23

% 0% 26% 0% 17% 17% 26% 4% 9% 99%

33. After 0 7 0 4 3 6 1 2 23

% 0% 30% 0% 17% 13% 26% 4% 9% 99%

Percentage %?? -1% %?? -1% -1% 1% 1% 100% 
100%

Increase/decrease

TABLE C224

Questions # 34 & 35 - Ohio

Prior to databaseDescriptor After database

i ncomi ng outgoing incoming outgoing

1 1 No Response 1_ 1

1 4 <10 1 1

3 1 10-20 3 5

1 2 21-44 2 1

2 2 45-75 1 1

0 0 76-100 1 1

2 0 101-350 1 0

0 0 351-500 0 0

0 0 500-1000 0 0

0 0 1001+ 0 0

10 10 Total Responses 10 10

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL



181

TABLE C225

Question # 36 - Ohio

Response n %

No Response 3 23%

Automation PLans 1 8%

Cataloging 2 15%

Collection Development 0 0%

Ease of use 2 15%

ILL Printed Forms 1 8%

Location tool 1 8%

Reference use 0 0%

Searching 3 23%

Verification 0 0%

13 100%

TABLE C226

Ohio
Improvements needed

Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 22%

Authority control 1 11%

Changing Discs, to many discs 0 0%

Cleanup 1 11%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 1 11%

Division of database other than by dates 0 0%

E-Mail 0 0%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more Libraries inputting records 3 33%

Periodicals add 0 0%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%

Searching - 1 11%

Speed 0 0%

Updating more often & consistently 0 0%

9 99%



Question # 38 - Ohio
Meet the users needs?

TABLE C227

1]
Responses: n

No Response 3 33%

No 0 %0

Yes 6 %67

9 100%

TABLE C228

Ohio
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 15%

Accuracy in Database 2 15%

Automation Services to all libraries 1 8%

Continuing Education 0 0%

Continue with current projects 3 23%

Full text deliver 0 0%

Funding 0 0%

Improve ILL delivery system 0 0%

Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 1 8%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 0 0%

Statewide database 3 23%

Statewide electronic mail system 0 %0

Establish statewide circulation system 0 0%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0%

Database management - Long range planning 1 8%

Totals 13 100%

182



183

TABLE C229

Ohio
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 8 80%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 0 0%

Reimbursement for ILL net Lenders 0 0%

If materials cost less than $20, should not 1 10%
loan

Our library does not provide Ill services 1 10%

This is our main source of information about 0 0%
other Libraries

10 100%



184

Responses from South Dakota: Tables C230 to C252.

TABLE C230

Question # 1: Title of Respondent - S.D.

TitLe: n 1%
Assistant - Associate Director 1 9%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 6 55%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection Development 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 2 18%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 1 9%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information SpeciaList 1 9%

Name 0 0%

Reference Librarian 0 0%

System Operator 0 0%

No Response 0 0%

11 100%



185

TABLE C231

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - S.D.

Type Number Percentage

Public 7 64%

Academic 3 27%

School 1 9%

Special 0 0%

Totals: 11 100%

TABLE C232

Size of ColLections - S.D.

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 1 9.1%

25,001 - 50,000 1 9.1%

50,001 - 100,000 6 54.6%

100,001 - 250,000 2 18.2%

over 250,000 1 9.1%

Not Responsive 0 0.0%

Total 11 100.1%

TABLE C233

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - S.D.

Description Number _%

Interlibrary Loan 11 28%

Public Access 9 23%

Backup 0 0%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 8 20%

Collection Development 8 20%

Reference - Other 4 10%

40 101%



186

TABLE C234

Questions #5 & 6 - S.D. - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide Database InterLibrary loan

Minutes n % n %

0 rno response 3 27% 1 9.1%

Less than 10 0 0% 0 0.0%

10 to 19 0 0% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 00% 0 0.0%

45 - 59 00% 1 9.1%

60 - 119 19% _99%%

120 - 179 2 18% 3 27.3%

180 - 239 1 9% 2 18.2%

240 - 299 0 0% 0 0.0%

300 + 4 36% 3 27.3%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

TotaL 11 99% 11 100.1%

TABLE C235

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - S.D.

Staff n[ _

InterLibrary Loan 10 22.2%

Reference 10 22.2%

Technical Services 9 20.0%

Director 10 22.2%

Extension Services staff 3 6.7%

Other 3 6.7%

No Response 0-0.0%

Total 45 100.0%



187

TABLE C236

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - S.D.

Responses n %

No response 1 9.1%

Yes 9 81.8%

No 1 9.1%,_,

Total 11 100.0%

TABLE C237

Question # 9 - PubLic Access? - S.D.

Responses n__

No response 0 0%

Yes 8 73%

No 3

Total 11 100%

TABLE C238

No Public Access - Why S.D.
Question 9A

Responses n__

No Response 8 73%

No Interest 0 0%

Dial Access only - equipment 3 27%

Difficulty of use 0 0

Staff use only 0 0

No Room 0 0%

Total 11 100%

TABLE C239

Question # 10 - Hardware - S.D.

Responses n

No response 0 0%

Yes 3 27%

No 8 73%

Total 11100%



188

TABLE C240

Question # 11 - Software - S.D. _%

l Responses n

No response 0 0%

Yes 0 0%

No 11 100%

Not ApplicabLe 0 0%

Total 11 10

TABLE C241

Question #12 & 13 - Training - S.D.

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 0 0%0

Yes 11 11 %100

No 0 0 %0

Total 11 11 100%

TABLE C242

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - S.D.

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 0% 0 0%

Yes 10 91% 8 73%

No 1 9% 3 27%

TotaL 11 100% 11 100%



189

TABLE C243

S.D.
Importance / Quality IUsefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
1.j 1 1_I ~Across

16. Browse - Author, 2 6 1 1 0 1 11
Title, or Subject
Searches.

18% 55% 9% 9% 0% 9% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 1 4 1 0 0 5 11
level of searching.

%9% 36% 9% 0% 0% 45% 99%

18. Boolean 2 5 2 1 0 1 11

18% 45% 18% 9% 0% 9% 99%

19. Keyword 7 2 1 0 0 1 11

64% 18% 9% 0% 0% 9% 100%

20. WiLdcard 4 3 2 1 0 1 11

36% 27% 18% 9% 0% 9% 99%

21. Searching 4 4 2 0 0 1 11

36% 36% 18% 0% 0% 9% 99%

22. Speed 1 6 3 0 0 1 11

%__9% 55% 27% 0% 0% 9% 100%

23. Directions 1 3 4 2 0 1 11

9% 27% 36% 18% 0% 9% 99%

24.Manual 1 1 4 1 2 2 11

%9% 9% 36% 9% 18% 18% 99%

25. Screens 0 5 4 1 0 1 11

%0% 45% 36% 9% 0% 9% 99%

26. Changing Discs 0 0 0 0 0 11 11

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total # per category 23 39 24 7 2 26 11

Average Percentage of 19% 32% 20% 6% 2% 21% 100%

each category

Average of each 2 4 2 1 0 2

category



190

TABLE C244

S.D.
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 = increased,_5 decreased.

Question #& 1 2 3 4 51 INR j Totals
Descriptor I___ ___L___ ___i___ ___IAcross

27. ILL 6 5 0 0 0 0 11
incoming

% 55% 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

28. ILL 5 4 0 1 0 1 11
outgoingI

% 45% 36% 0% 9% 0% 9% 99%

29. Fill Rate 2 7 2 0 0 0 11

%_18% 64% 18% 0% 0% 0% 100%

30.Blind 0 1 4 1 0 5 11
Searches
received

% 0% 9% 36% 9% 0% 45% 99%

TABLE C245

Question # 31 - S.D.

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

0 1 3 6 1 11

0% 9% 27% 55% 9% 100%

TABLE C246

S.D.
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks #

32. Prior 7 10 0 4 8 3 0 0 32

% 22% 31% 0% 13% 25% 9% 0% 0% 100%

33. After 7 11 0 7 7 6 0 0 38

% 18% 29% 0% 18% 18% 16% 0% 0% 99%

Percentage 1% -1% 0% -2% -1% 2% 0% 0% 84%
Increase/decrease



191

TABLE C247

Questions # 34 & 35 - S.D.

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing ncoming outgoing

4 5 No Response 2 3

1 0 <10 2 1

0 1 10-20 1 0

1 1 21-44 0 0

3 2 45-75 2 1

0 0 76-100 1 0

1 1 101-350 1 3

0 351-500 1 1

0 0 500-1000 0 1

1 1 1001+ 1 1

11 11 TotaL Responses 11 11

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C248

Question # 36 - S.D.

Response n %

No Response 2 10%

Automation Plans 0 0%

CataLoging 2 10%

Item Status 2 10%

Ease of use 1 5%

ILL 2 10%

Location tooL 3 15%

Reference use 2 10%

Searching 5 25%

Magazine index 1 5%

I_20 100%



192

TABLE C249

S.D.
Improvements needed

Question_#_37

Responses: n %

No Responses 3 27%

Authority control 0 0%

Acquisitions o 0%
CircuLation Procedures 0 0%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

Education - more training 1 9%

Indexes to manuals, on screen instructions 1 9%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 1 9%

Periodicals add 2 18%

Refusal to loan materials 0 0%

Searching - 1 9%

Add personnel to system operations 1 9%

Increase full text 1 9%

11 99%

TABLE C250

Question # 38 - S.D.
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 3 27%

No 0 %0

Yes 8 %73

11 100%



193

TABLE C251

S.D.
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n

No Responses 3 23%

Accuracy in Database 1 8%

Automation Services to all Libraries 2 15%

Continuing Education 1 8%

Continue with current projects 0 0%

Full text deliver 0 0%

Funding 0 0%

Improve ILL delivery system 0 0%
Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 1 8%

Retrospective Conversion 0 0%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 1 8%

Statewide database - funding 4 31%

Statewide electronic mail system 0 %0

Establish statewide circulation system 0 0%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0%

Database management - Long range planning 0 0%

Totals 13 101%

TABLE C252

S.D.
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n

No Responses 7 64%

Include all libraries in state 1 _ 9%

It is expensive 1 9%
If materials cost less than $20, should not 0 0%
loan

State Library does an excellent job 9%

This is our main source of information about 1 9%
other libraries - helps resource sharing

11 100%



194

Responses from Tenn.: Tables C253 to C275.

TABLE C253

Question_#_1:_Title ofRespondent_- Tenn.

Title: n %

Assistant - Associate Director 2 29%

Assistant ILL 1 14%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%
Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 1 14%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection DeveLopment 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%
ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. i 14%

Library CLerk 0 0%

Library Tech 2 29%

Media Specialist, LRC SpeciaList, Information Specialist 0 0%

Name 0 0%
Reference Librarian 0 0%
System Operator 0 0%

No Response 0 0%

7 100%



195

TABLE C254

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Tenn.

Type Number Percentage

PubLic 5 56%

Academic o00%
SchooL 0 0%

Special 4 44%

TotaLs: 9 100%

TABLE C255

Size ofCollections - Tenn.

Responses: I _ _ _ _ I _ __ _
Under 25,000 1 11.1%

25,001 - 50,000 0 0.0%
50,001 - 100,000 0 0.0%
100,001 - 250,000 5 55.6%

Over 250,000 3 33.3%

Not Responsive 0 0.0%
TotaL 9 100.0%

TABLE C256

Uses of the Statewide database-Question #4 - Tenn.

Descr ipt ion Number %
Interlibrary Loan 3 38%
Public Access 0 0%
Backup 0 0%
Cataloging / Acquisitions 4 50%
Cotlection Development 0 0%
Reference - Other 1 13%

8 101%



196

TABLE C257

Questions #5 & 6 - Tenn. - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewideiatabase Interlibraryloan

Minutes n n %

0 or no response 2 29% 4 57.1%

Less than 10 0 0% 0 0.0%

10 to19 0 0% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 0 0% 0 0.0%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 0 0% 0 0.0%

120 - 179 1 14% 1 14.3%

180 - 239 1 14% 0 0.0%

240 -299 1 14% 1 14.3%

300 + 2 29% 1 14.3%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

Total 7 100% 7 100.0%

TABLE C258

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Tenn.

Staff n %

Interlibrary loan 3 42.9%

Reference 0 0.0%

Technical Services 4 57.1%

Director 0 0.0%

Extension Services staff 0 0.0%

Other 0 0.0%

No Response 0 0.0%

Total 7 100.0%



197

TABLE C259

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Tenn.

Responses n %

No response 0 0.0%

Yes 7 100.0%

No 0 0.0%

Total 7 100.0%

TABLE C260

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Tenn.

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 0 0%

No 7 100%

Total 7 100%

TABLE C261.

No Public Access - Why - Tenn.
Question 9A

Responses n %

No Response 1 14%

No Interest 0 0%

Dial Access only - equipment 0 0%

Difficulty of use 0 0

Staff use only 6 86

No Room 0 0%

Total 7 100%

TABLE C262

Question # 10 - Hardware - Tenn.

Responses n %-

No response 0 0%

Yes 4 57%

No 3 43%

TotaL 7 100%



198

TABLE C263

Question # 11 - Software - Tenn.

Responses n

No response 0 0%

Yes 4 57%

No 3 43%

Not AppLicabLe 0 0%

TotaL 7 100%

TABLE C264

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - Tenn.

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 0 0 00

Yes 7 7 %100

No 0 0__ _

TotaL 7 7 100%

TABLE C265

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Tenn.

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 0 0% 0 0%

Yes 7 100% 2 29%

No 0 0% 5 71%

Total 7 100% 7 100%



199

TABLE C266

Tenn.
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

I = Excellent, 5 Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
I I II I I Across

16. Browse - Author, 1 1 3 0 2 0 7
Title, or Subject
Searches.

%14% 14% 43% 0% 29% 0% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 1 2 3 0 0 1 7
level of searching.

%14% 29% 43% 0% 0% 14% 100%

18. Boolean 2 0 3 1 1 0 7

% 29% 0% 43% 14% 14% 0% 100%

19. Keyword 1 1 3 1 0 1 7

% 14% 14% 43% 14% 0% 14% 99%

20. WiLdcard 0 2 3 0 1 1 7

% 0% 29% 43% 0% 14% 14% 100%

21. Searching 1 3 3 0 0 0 7

% 14% 43% 43% 0% 0% 0% 100%

22. Speed 2 2 2 1 0 0 7

% 29% 29% 29% 14% 0% 0% 101%

23. Directions 1 1 4 0 1 0 7

% 14% 14% 57% 0% 14% 0% 99%

24. Manual 0 0 4 0 3 0 7

% 0% 0% 57% 0% 43% 0% 100%

25. Screens 0 0 5 1 0 1 7

% 0% 0% 71% 14% 0% 14% 99%

26. Changing Discs 0 0 5 0 0 2 7

%0% 0% 71% 0% 0% 29% 100%

Total # per category 9 12 38 4 8 6 7

Average Percentage of 12% 16% 49% 5% 10% 8% 100%
each category

Average of each 1 1 3 0 1 1
category



200

IMPACT OF THE STATEWIDE DATABASE ON RESOURCE SHARING

TABLE C267

Tenn.
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 = increased, 5 decreased.

1uet1o # 1 21314151 NR Totals
Descriptor I_ _I_ _I I_ _ Across

27. ILL 0 0 3 0 0 4 7
incoming

% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 57% 100%

28. ILL 0 0 3 0 0 4 7
outgoing

% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 57% 100%

29. Fill Rate 0 1 2 0 0 4 7

% 0% 14% 29% 0% 0% 57% 100%

30. Blind 0 0 1 1 0 5 7
Searches
received

% 0% 0% 14% 14% 0% 71% 99%

TABLE C268

Question # 31 - Tenn.

NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

5 0 1 1 0 7

71% 0% 14% 14% 0% 99%



201

TABLE C269

Tenn.
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks _I#

32. Prior 3 3 0 2 4 1 1 3 17

% 18% 18% 0% 12% 24% 6% 6% 18% 102%

33. After 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 3 17

% 18% 18% 0% 18% 18% 12% 0% 18% 102%

Percentage 1% -1% %?? -2% -1% 2% %0 %100 100%
Increase/decrease

TABLE C270

Questions # 34 & 35 - Tenn.

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing _I incoming outgoing

5 5 No Response 5 5

0 0 <10 0 0

0 0 10-20 0 0

0 0 21-44 0 0

0 0 45-75 0 0

0 0 76-100 0 0

0 1 101-350 0 1

1 0 351-500 1 0

0 1 500-1000 0 1

1 0 1001+ 1 0

7 7 TotaL Responses 7 7

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL



202

TABLE C271

Question # 36 - Tenn.

Response n %

No Response 1 8%

All formats are available 1 8%

Cataloging 0 0%

Item Status 3 23%

Ease of use 1 8%

ILL 1 8%

Location tooL 2 15%

Browse mode 2 15%

Searching 1 8%

Verification 1 8%

13 101%

TABLE C272

Tenn.
Improvements needed

Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 22%

Authority control - cataloging 1 11%

Electronic delivery - full text 0 0%

Circulation Procedures 1 11%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

Ill 1 11%

Indexes to manuals, on screen instructions 0 0%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 0 0%

Periodicals spotty 1 11%

Update software 2 22%

Searching - 0 0%

Public access software 0 0%

Communications 1 11%

9 99%



203

TABLE C273

Question # 38 - Tenn.
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 2 29%

No 0 %0

Yes 5 %71

7 100%

TABLE C274

Tenn.
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 29%

Accuracy in Database 1 14%

Automation Services to all libraries 0 0%

Continuing Education 0 0%

Continue with current projects 0 0%

Futl text deliver 0 0%

Funding 0 0%

Improve ILL deLivery system 0 0%

Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 1 14%

Verification & HoLding info. 1 14%

Statewide database 0 0%

Statewide electronic maiL system 0 %0

Circulation software & hardware 1 14%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0%

Cataloging of materials into database 1 14%

TotaLs 7 99%



204

TABLE C275

Tenn.
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 5 63%

Include all libraries in state 0 0%

No way to cancel a request 1 13%

No serial holding request 1 13%

Not open to public 1 13%

Decrease paperwork 0 0%

_ _ _ _ _ _8 102%



205

Responses from Wisconsin: Tables C276 to C298.

TABLE C276

Question # 1: Title of Respondent

Title:j n %

Assistant - Associate Director 0 0%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Bibliographic Specialist 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 1 5%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 8 42%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, Collection Development 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 0 0%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 3 16%

Library CLerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC SpeciaList, Information Specialist 4 21%

Name 2 11%

Reference Librarian 1 5%

System Operator 0 0%
No Response 0 0%

19 100%



206

TABLE C277

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - Wisconsin

Type Number Percentage

Academic 3 16%

Public 11 58%

School 3 16%

Special 2 11%

Totals: 19 100%

TABLE C278

Size of ColLections - Wisconsin

Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 5 26.3%

25,001 - 50,000 3 15.8%

50,001 - 100,000 1 5.3%

100,001 - 250,000 4 21.1%

Over 250,000 4 21.1%

Not Responsive 2 10.5%

Total 19 100.1%

TABLE C279

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 [ Wisconsin

Description Number%

InterLibrary loan 45 34%

Public Access 21 16%

Backup 11 8%

Cataloging / Acquisitions 35 27%

Collection Development 17 13%

Reference - Other 3 2%

132 100%



207

TABLE C280

Questions #5 & 6 - Wisconsin - Amount of time spend daiLy on:

Statewide Database Intertibrary loan

Minutes n % n I

0 or no response 1 5% 3 15.8%

Less than 10 1 5% 1 5.3%

10 to19 0 0% 0 0.0%

20 to 29 1 5% 1 5.3%

30 - 44 6 32% 2 10.5%

45 - 59 0 0% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 1 5% 3 15.8%

120 - 179 3 16% 2 10.5%

180 - 239 3 16% 2 10.5%

240 - 299 0 0% 2 10.5%

300 + 3 16% 3 15.8%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

TotaL 19 100% 19 100.0%

TABLE C281

Question # 7 - Type of staff using database - Wisconsin

Staff n _%

InterLibrary Loan 16 32.7%

Reference 11 22.5%

Technical Services 10 20.4%

Director 10 20.4%

Extension Services staff 2 4.1%

Other 0 0.0%

Students, FacuLty of 0 0.0%
institution

No Response 0 0.0%

TotaL 49 100.1%



208

TABLE C282

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - Wisconsin

Responses n %

No response 0 0.0%

Yes 14 73.7%

No 5 26.3%

TotaL 19 100.0%

TABLE C283

Question # 9 - Public Access? - Wisconsin

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 7 37%

No 12 63%

TotaL 19 100%

TABLE C284

No PubLic Access - Why - Wisconsin
Question 9A

Responses n %

No Response 7 35%

No Interest 0 0%

No Equipment 7 35%

Microfiche onLy 1 5

Staff use only 4 20

No Room 1 5%

TotaL 20 100%



209

TABLE C285

Question # 10 - Hardware - Wisconsin

Responses n %

No response 1 5%

Yes 3 16%

No 15 79%

Total 19 100%

TABLE C286

Question # 11 - Software - Wisconsin

Responses n %

No response 0 0%

Yes 2 6%

No 15 44%

Not AppticabLe 17 50%

Total 34 100%

TABLE C287

Question # 12 & 13 - Training- Wisconsin

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 1 0 0%

Yes 16 15 79%

No 2 4 21%

TotaL 19 19 100%

TABLE C288

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - Wisconsin

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need %
Training

No response 3 16% 0 0%

Yes 14 74% 6 32%

No 2 11% 13 68%

Total 19 101% 19 100%



210

TABLE C289

Wisconsin
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals

_ _ _I _ _I_ _I__ 
IAcross

16. Browse - Author, 5 10 1 1 0 2 19
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 26% 53% 5% 5% 0% 11% 100%

17. Express - Advanced 3 4 6 2 0 4 19
Level of searching.

% 16% 21% 32% 11% 0% 21% 101%

18. Boolean 1 5 5 3 2 2 18

% 6% 28% 28% 17% 11% 11% 101%

19. Keyword 7 3 4 3 0 2 19

%37% 16% 21% 16% 0% 11% 101%

20. Wildcard 2 1 9 2 0 4 18

% 11% 6% 50% 11% 0% 22% 100%

21. Searching 2 13 2 0 0 2 19

% 11% 68% 11% 0% 0% 11% 101%

22. Speed 2 6 3 6 0 2 19

% 11% 32% 16% 32% 0% 11% 102%

23. Directions 4 8 2 3 0 2 19

% 21% 42% 11% 16% 0% 11% 101%

24. Manual 2 4 5 3 3 2 19

% 11% 21% 26% 16% 16% 11% 101%

25. Screens 4 7 6 0 0 2 19

% 21% 37% 32% 0% 0% 11% 101%

26. Changing Discs 1 2 10 0 0 6 19

%_5% 11% 53% 0% 0% 32% 101%

Total # per category 33 63 53 23 5 30 19

Average Percentage of 16% 30% 26% 11% 2% 15% 100%
each category

Average of each 3 6 5 2 0 3
category



211

TABLE C290

Wisconsin
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 = increased, 5 decreased.

Question # & 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Descriptor Across

27. ILL 4 11 2 0 0 2 19
incoming

% 21% 58% 11% 0% 0% 11% 101%

28. ILL 3 8 6 0 0 2 19
outgoing

% 16% 42% 32% 0% 0% 11% 101%

29. Fill Rate 1 11 4 2 0 1 19

% 5% 58% 21% 11% 0% 5% 100%

30. Blind 1 3 8 2 3 2 19
Searches
received

% 5% 16% 42% 11% 16% 11% 101%

TABLE C291

Question # 31 - Wisconsin

NR 0-25% 26-50% 1 51-75% 76-100% Total #
5 1 3 2 8 19

26% 5% 1 16% 11% 42% 100%

TABLE C292

Wisconsin
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total
rks

32. Prior 3 17 0 11 8 3 4 1 47

% 6% 36% 0% 23% 17% 6% 9% 2% 99%

33. After 5 14 0 13 11 5 4 1 53

% 9% 26% 0% 25% 21% 9% 8% 2% 100%

Percentage 2% -1% %?? -1% -1% 2% 1% 100% 89%
Increase/decrease

I



212

TABLE C293

Questions # 34 & 35 - Wisconsin

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming outgoing incoming outgoing

2 0 No Service 0 0

11% 0% Percentage of respondents 0% 0%
giving noILL service.

Percent Decrease of no -200% 0%
service

3 3 No Response 3 3

4 4 <10 3 1

3 1 10-20 1 4

3 2 21-44 2 1

0 2 45-75 1 4

1 1 76-100 3 0

0 4 101-350 1 3

0 0 351-500 0 2

3 0 500-1000 1 0

2 2 1001+ 4 2

19 19 TotaL Responses 19 20

Percentage increase / 10% 11%
Decrease of ILL



213

TABLE C294

Question # 36 - Wisconsin

Response n %

No Response 4 13%

Automation PLans 0 0%

Cataloging 2 6%

Collection Development 1 3%

Ease of use 5 16%

ILL Printed Forms 0 0%

Location tool 6 19%

Reference use 3 9%

Searching 9 28%

Verification 2 6%

32 100%

TABLE C295

Wisconsin
Improvements needed

Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 4 19%

Authority control 2 10%

Changing Discs, to many discs 1 5%

Cleanup 3 14%

Errors - dupLicate records - multipLe titles 7 33%

Periodicals add 1 5%

Updating more often & consistently 3 14%

21 100%

TABLE C296

Question # 38 - Wisconsin
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 3 16%

No 1 %5

Yes 15 %79

.19 100%



214

TABLE C297

Wisconsin
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 5 13%

Accuracy in Database 2 5%

Automation Services to all libraries 8 21%

Continuing Education 2 5%

Continue with current projects 2 5%

Full text deliver 1 3%

Funding 1 3%

Improve ILL delivery system 2 5%

Keep Database updated 2 5%

Make system easer to use 0 0%

Retrospective Conversion 1 3%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 5 13%

Statewide database 0 0%

Statewide electronic mail system 2 %5

Establish statewide circulation system 2 5%

I don't understand what Priority means? 1 3%

Database management - long range planning 2 5%

Totals 38 100%

TABLE C298

Wisconsin
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 36 82%

Use Statewide database in Reference Services 1 2%

Reimbursement for ILL net lenders 4 9%

Great if Automated 1 2%

Our library does not provide Ill services 1 2%

This is our main source of information about 1 2%
other libraries

0%44



215

Responses from West Virginia: Tables C299 to C321.

TABLE C299

Question_#_1:_Title ofRespondent_- W.V.

Title: n%

Assistant - Associate Director 0 0%

Assistant ILL 0 0%

Sibliographic SpeciaList 0 0%

Computer Manager, Coordinator 0 0%

Coordinator Adult Services 0 0%

Director, Head Librarian, Library Manager 2 22%

Extension Librarian 0 0%

Head, ColLection DeveLopment 0 0%

Head, Reference Services 0 0%

Head, Technical Services, Cataloging 3 33%

ILL Coordinator, Supervisor, Head, etc. 0 0%

Library Clerk 0 0%

Library Tech 0 0%

Media Specialist, LRC Specialist, Information Specialist 0 0%

Name 0 0%

Reference Librarian 1 11%

System Operator 2 22%
No Response 1 11%

9 99%



216

TABLE C300

Respondents to Questionnaire by TYPE of Library - W.V.

Type Number Percentage

Public 9 100%

Academic 0 0%

School 0 0%

Special 0 0%

TotaLs: 9 100%

TABLE C301

Size ofColLections W.V.
Responses: n % of users

Under 25,000 0 0.0%

25,001 - 50,000 2 22.2%

50,001 - 100,000 2 22.2%

100,001 - 250,000 3 33.3%

Over 250,000 1 11.1%

Not Responsive 1 11.1%

Total 9 99.9%

TABLE C302

Uses of the Statewide database - Question #4 - W.V.

DescriptionNumber__

InterLibrary loan 9 43%
Public Access 3 14%

Backup 1 5%
Cataloging / Acquisitions 7 33%

ColLection DeveLopment 1 5%

Reference - Other 0 0%

[ ____________I21 100%]



217

TABLE C303

Questions #5 & 6 - W.V. - Amount of time spend daily on:

Statewide databasee InterLibrary Loan

Minutes n %an%

0 or no response 0 0% 3 33.3%

Less than 10 1 10% 1 11.1%

10 to19 1 10% 1 11.1%

20 to 29 0 0% 0 0.0%

30 - 44 0 0% 1 11.1%

45 - 59 1 10% 0 0.0%

60 - 119 2 20% 1 11.1%

120 - 179 2 20% 1 11.1%

180 - 239 0 0% 0 0.0%

240 - 299 0 0% 0 0.0%

300 + 3 30% 1 11.1%

Other 0 0% 0 0.0%

Total 10 100% 9 99.9%

TABLE C304

Question # 7 Type of staff using database - W.V.

Staff nI

InterLibrary loan 9 37.5%

Reference 5 20.8%

Technical Services 7 29.2%

Director 2 8.3%

Extension Services staff 1 4.2%

Other 0 0.0%

No Response o00.0%
Total 24 100.0%



218

TABLE C305

Question # 8 - dedicated equipment - W.V.

Responses n

No response 1 11.1%

Yes 5 55.6%

No 3 33.3%

Total 9 100.0%

TABLE C306

Question # 9 - Public Access? - W.V.

Responses n

No response 0 0%

Yes 2 22%

No 7 78%

Total 9 100%

TABLE C307

No Public Access - Why - W.V.
Question 9A

Responses n

No Response 1 10%
No Interest 0 0%

Dial Access only - equipment 1 10%

Difficulty of use 2 20

Staff use only 5 50

No Room 1 10%

Total 10 100%



219

TABLE C308

Question # 10 - Hardware - W.V.

Responses n %

No response 1 11%

Yes 1 11%

0 7 178%
Total 9 100%

TABLE C309

Question # 11 - Software - W.V.

Responses n %

No response 1 11%

Yes 2 22%

No 6 67%

Not ApplicabLe 0 0%

Total 9 100%

TABLE C310

Question # 12 & 13 - Training - W.V.

Responses n - State n - Attended %
Training

No response 1 1 %11

Yes 1 2 %22

No 7 6 %67

Totat 9 9 100%

TABLE C311

Questions 14 & 15 - Training - W.V.

Responses n - Adequate training % n - need
Training

No response 6 67% 0 0%

Yes 2 22% 2 22%

No 1 11% 7 78%

Total 9 100% 9 100%



220

TABLE C312

W.V.
Importance / Quality / Usefulness

1 = Excellent, 5 = Poor

Question # & Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 NR Totals
Across

16. Browse - Author, 1 2 2 2 0 2 9
Title, or Subject
Searches.

% 11% 22% 22% 22% 0% 22% 99%

17. Express - Advanced 2 4 1 0 0 2 9
Level of searching.

%22% 44% 11% 0% 0% 22% 99%

18. Boolean 2 2 2 0 1 2 9

%22% 22% 22% 0% 11% 22% 99%

19. Keyword 2 2 2 0 1 2 9

%_22% 22% 22% 0% 11% 22% 99%

20. Wildcard 2 1 1 0 1 4 9

%_22% 11% 11% 0% 11% 44% 99%

21. Searching 2 3 4 0 0 0 9

%_22% 33% 44% 0% 0% 0% 99%

22. Speed 2 6 1 0 0 0 9

%_22% 67% 11% 0% 0% 0% 100%

23. Directions 1 4 3 0 1 0 9

%_11% 44% 33% 0% 11% 0% 99%

24. Manual 0 0 5 1 0 3 9

% 0% 0% 56% 11% 0% 33% 100%

25. Screens 3 3 2 0 0 1 9

% 33% 33% 22% 0% 0% 11% 99%

26. Changing Discs 1 0 0 0 0 8 9

%_11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 100%

Total # per category 18 27 23 3 4 24 9

Average Percentage of 18% 27% 23% 3% 4% 24% 99%
each category

Average of each 2 2 2 0 0 2
category



221

TABLE C313

W.V.
Questions 27-30, Increases or decreases of service.

1 increased, 5 decreased.

Question # &1 1 2 1 3 1 4 5T NRI Totals
Descriptor 1 1 j____1 ___ ___Across

27. ILL 1 3 3 0 0 2 9

incoming

% 11% 33% 33% 0% 0% 22% 99%

28. ILL 3 1 4 0 0 1 9

outgoing

% 33% 11% 44% 0% 0% 11% 99%

29. Fill Rate 1 4 2 1 0 1 9

% 11% 44% 22% 11% 0% 11% 99%

30. Blind 0 2 6 0 0 1 9

Searches
received

% 0% 22% 67% 0% 0% 11% 100%

TABLE C314

Question # 31 - W.V. 1]
NR 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total #

0 0 1 3 5 9

0% 0% 11% 33% 56% 100%

TABLE C315

W.V.
Questions # 32 & 33,

Methods of ILL

OCLC Mail ALANET Netwo Phone Fax Other NR Total

rks

32. Prior 1 9 1 1 4 2 0 0 18

% 6% 50% 6% 6% 22% 11% 0% 0% 101%

33. After 0 9 0 3 5 3 0 0 20

% 0% 45% 0% 15% 25% 15% 0% 0% 100%

Percentage 0% -1% 0% -3% -1% 2% %?? %?? 90%

Increase/decrease



222

TABLE C316

Questions # 34 & 35 - W.V.

Prior to database Descriptor After database

incoming ( outgoing incoming outgoing
3 2 No Response 0 0

1 2 <10 3 4

2 2 10-20 1 1

1 1 21-44 1 1

1 1 45-75 3 0

0 0 76-100 0 2

0 0 101-350 0 0

1 0 351-500 0 0

0 0 500-1000 1 0

0 1 1001+ 0 1

9 9 TotaL Responses 9 9

Percentage increase / 10% 10%
Decrease of ILL

TABLE C317

Question # 36 - W.V.

Response n %

No Response 4 40%

Automation Plans 0 0%

Cataloging 1 10%

Item Status 2 20%

Ease of use 0 0%

ILL 0 0%

Location tooL 2 20%

Reference use 0 0%

Searching 0 0%

Verification 1 10%

10 100%



TABLE C318

Improvements needed
Question # 37

Responses: n %

No Responses 1 6%

Authority control - cataloging 1 6%

Electronic delivery - full text 2 13%

Circulation Procedures 1 6%

Cumulative printing of screens or search 0 0%

ilt should be on-line 4 25%

Indexes to manuals, on screen instructions 0 0%

Errors - duplicate records - multiple titles 0 0%

Need more libraries inputting records 1 6%

Periodicals add 0 0%

Update software 3 19%

Searching - 1 6%

Public access software 1 6%

Change to CD-ROM 1 6%

16 99%

TABLE C319

Question # 38 - W.V.
Meet the users needs?

Responses: n %

No Response 3 33%

No 0 __ _

Yes 6 %67

9 100%

223



224

TABLE C320

W.V.
Question # 39

Priority

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 15%

Accuracy in Database 0 0%

Automation Services to all Libraries 2 15%

Continuing Education 1 8%

Continue with current projects 0 0%

Full text deLiver 1 8%

Funding 1 8%

Improve ILL delivery system 2 15%

Keep Database updated 0 0%

Make system easer to use 1 8%

Retrospective Conversion 0 0%

Statewide Borrowing Agreement 0 0%

Statewide database - funding 0 0%

Statewide electronic mail system 1 %8

Establish statewide circulation system 1 8%

I don't understand what Priority means? 0 0%

Coordination lead by the state, don't instalL 1 8%
& abandon

Totals 13 101%

TABLE C321

W.V.
Question # 40

Comments

Responses: n %

No Responses 2 25%

Include all libraries in state 1 13%

Greatly increased ILL from small lib. with no 1 13%
funding

Need more statewide cooperation 2 25%

Reduce cost 1 13%

Decrease paperwork 1 13%

8 102%



APPENDIX D

RESPONSES FROM STATE LIBRARIES

225



C. 6

UM F, ev
s0

Li

I

.

0 0 e

H N N

] > -
e

~ 603 i L

S N

S8 8-~ I a
N ~

08

0 0

cc ~ N& e

L 0 a

(A.I 114c c I .I .,., .e . - -

226

0



OS
4P "a

i a

04

U-40
4.0 &1' 414

Eu -

0 4 0

4J to 40

0~
Nen

1j w ti 44

0 4+

N +N

IU a) 4

409

N -

* 6 N 0

0 n PN

0

PM C4 It

4))

.20'a 1 . z

.010
Uca goNca w 0

0 U) P]I0 T

00 all~L~ in l' I .~U
41 K

227
0

LL

G



ii6 g it I
I i~t 5

* 6

i
U

*6@

#a

04U C!

228



APPENDIX E

VENDOR'S RESPONSE TO MISSOURI'S RFP.

AUTO-GRAPHICS, BRODART COMPANY, AND LIBRARY CORPORATION

229



230

Request for Proposal - State of Missouri CD-ROM Statewide
Database

Referrals to attachments or Appendix are directions in the
original documents. Those attachments are not included in
this document. This document is a direct copy of the
response to a RFP from the Missouri State Library by Brodart
Company.

Proposal from Brodart Company

PART ONE INTRODUCTION AND
GENERAL INFORMATION

Introduction

1.1

Noted. Brodart Automation has thoroughly reviewed the terms
and conditions set forth in the RFP.

Organization

2.1

Noted. Brodart has reviewed the Proposal submission
requirements detailed in "PART FOUR - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
INFORMATION" on page 22. Our proposal complies with the
organizational requirements recommended. Supplemental
information has been provided in "ATTACHMENTS" on page 40.

Background information.
Subparagraphs 3.1 through 3.5 in this section have been
reviewed and are noted.



231

PART TWO - SCOPE OF WORK

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Brodart Automation is proposing our 
database creation and

maintenance service and our Le Pac(R) public 
access catalog

as the continuing solution to the state's ongoing 
CD-ROM

public access catalog needs. As the 
current vendor of this

product, the state will continue 
to benefit from Brodart's

familiarity with your needs and requirements.

Brodart is proposing to produce your catalog 
exactly

according to the specifications 
in the RFP. We feel that one

of the most important advantages 
we can offer the state is

our data compression technology. With 
a catalog the size of

the state of Missouri's, data compression is 
of key

importance. As a leader in the creation 
of CD-ROM databases,

we have developed techniques which maximize the 
storage

capacity of the compact disc. 
By fully exploiting the CDs

capacity, we are able to keep 
the number of discs required

for the catalog to a minimum reducing 
both production and

hardware costs to the state.

The management of an extremely large database 
with multiple

update input sources requires a vendor 
with extensive

experience in the management of large 
databases. Brodart is,

perhaps, the most experienced vendor 
in the area of database

management. Currently, we have over 1,200 
separate programs

designed to efficiently manipulate 
bibliographic data for

the creation of precise library automation 
products. Over

the many years we have been providing 
this service to

libraries we have been able to successfully manipulate

bibliographic data from a wide variety 
of sources. With this

experience behind us, we do not 
anticipate any problems

maintaining a high quality database for 
the state of

Missouri.

We are proposing to provide the state with the following

products and services:

Creation of statewide database: Brodart 
proposes to continue

to provide the state with the overall 
creation of the

database. We will continue to apply our sophisticated 
file

and data manipulation programs to the state's 
variety of

input sources to create a fully merged 
and deduplicated

file, which will result in the production of 
a "clean" CD-

ROM product for the state. Additionally, 
the application of

our automated authority control processing will 
insure the

continued accuracy and currency of the name and 
subject

headings in the database.



232

CD-ROM Creation: Brodart will continue to prepare the file
for mastering onto the CD-ROM disc. Brodart will then create
and deliver the discs in the appropriate number of copies at
the production intervals requested by the state in the RFP.

CD-ROM Search Software: Brodart will continue to provide our
Le Pac search software to be used by the state's libraries
in conjunction with the CD-ROM catalog. We have reviewed the
specifications discussed in the RFP and essentially they
mirror the product you are receiving today. The current
users of the catalog are familiar with Le Pac's ease of
operation and powerful searching features. The product we
are providing to you today is a direct result of input
received not only from the state of Missouri's library
staff, but from thousands of Le Pac users throughout the
country.

In summary, by selecting Brodart Automation as the
continuing source for the production of the state's CD-ROM
union file, you continue to assure the library patrons
throughout the state with the finest quality public access
catalog available at the best possible price. We look
forward to continuing our relationship with the state's
libraries as we continue to serve your automation needs.

3.1

Brodart will provide the first edition of the catalog within
the time frames discussed in the RFP. Subsequent editions of
the catalog will be delivered by October 1 with a
supplemental catalog produced and delivered by April 1 of
each year. Provided we receive the appropriate product
profiles and input data within the established time frames,
we do not anticipate any difficulties with "on time" product
delivery.

3.1.1

Brodart will provide the demonstration catalog on CD-ROM as
requested by the state.

3.2

Brodart will continue to produce the statewide database from
the bibliographic input sources discussed in the RFP.



233

3.2.1

Brodart is the current producer of the MARC tapes and will
use them for production of the state's database and
subsequent CD-ROM catalog.

3.2.2

Brodart has processed the input sources discussed in the
section for production of the state's catalog.

3.2.3

Brodart has reviewed the additional possible input sources
listed in Exhibit A, Pricing Page, Section 3.1 through 3.11.
We are able to process any tape input source in true LC MARC
II Communications format.

Although we are able to process this data for inclusion in
the database, we strongly recommend that the state review
the quality of all input sources prior to inclusion in the
catalog. A union database seeks to combine all duplicate
records into one "master" record with each contributing
library's holdings information appended to the record.
During the "deduplication" of the file, many times records
of questionable quality, regardless of source, do not
"deduplicate," even though they are, in fact additional
copies of the same record. These "dirty" records clutter the
union file, increase catalog production costs and generally
do not conform to established MARC standards. Our experience
has shown that occasionally some records are not of a
quality suitable for inclusion in a quality state catalog.
We are willing to work with the state to determine the
suitability of including records from various input sources
on a case-by-case-basis.

Brodart can accept and Process any diskette input that
is in microLif or US MARC microLif Protocol for
inclusion in the catalog.

3.3

Brodart will perform the deduplication processing according
to the hierarchy delineated in sections 3.3.1, OCLC, 3.3.2
UTLAS, 3.3.3 Bibliofile and Section 3.3.4,.



234

3.4

Brodart will create the database according to the hierarchy
specified by the state.

3.5

Brodart is currently maintaining the Missouri Union List of
Serials (MULSP) as a separate file.

3.5.1

Noted. Brodart is thoroughly familiar with the tag/subfield
structure of the MULSP database and has successfully
manipulated it for inclusion in the state's current Le Pac
CD-ROM catalog.

3.5.2

Noted. Brodart is familiar with the file structure.

3.6

Brodart will assign a unique control number to all records
in the database. For OCLC records the OCLC number will be
retained.

3.7

All tags on the master file will be retained.

4. AUTHORITY CONTROL

4.1

Before CO mastering Brodart will apply automated LC
Authority Control processing to the database as indicated in
the RFP. A discussion of Brodart's automated authority
control processing procedure is provided at Attachment A.



235

4.2

The new records added to the file will be authorized with
the entire file prior to the production of the cumulative
catalog.

4.3

Part of our standard authority control processing is thegeneration of appropriate cross references for display inthe catalog. Le Pac will automatically display the
appropriate "SEE" and SEE ALSO" references. Users may thenselect and be taken directly to those particular catalog
entries.

4.4

The catalog will be updated with new or changed LC subjectheadings and cross references.

5. CD-ROM DISC CREATION

5.1 Brodart will perform the necessary mastering and
premastering of the database and then transfer the data to
CD-ROM disc.

5.1.1

Brodart will produce the copies (400) as requested in theRFP. Additional copies can also be produced and delivered asmay be desired by the state.

5.2

The recommended drive for use with the Le Pac catalog is theHitachi CD-ROM drip. Drives from Philips and Sony are alsoknown to be compatible. MS-DOS extensions will be required
for use with non-Hitachi drives.

5.3

Le Pac conforms to High Sierra Group (ISSO 9660) standardsfor format volume and file structure.



236

5.4.

Brodart's sophisticated data compression technology allows

us to most fully use the tremendous storage capacity of the

CD-ROM disc. We had successfully processed one million

(1,000,000) titles on just one compact disc. When dealing
with a bibliographic database the size of the state of

Missouri's, the vendor's ability to fully utilize the

storage capacity of the CD-ROM disc is of key importance to

the cost of the project. Additional discs escalate costs in

both the areas of disc replication and the requirement for

additional CD-ROM drives. Brodart's ability to contain more

title per disc than any other CD-ROM vendor gives the state

a considerable cost savings.

Brodart can process the catalog among the discs in any of

several different "split" methodologies. Brodart is

confident that the state's catalog will "fit" on only five

CDs, including the state's supplement file and the index

file disc currently required to tell users the correct disc

to use for each search entered.

Essentially, the file can be mastered in one of two ways.

Option 1 Brodart can master the file as one file spanning

multiple CDs. The search software would be set to search the

entire file simultaneously as one (1) file. Through this

method, the user is not required to switch or swap discs and

the requirement for index CD is eliminated. The clear

disadvantage is the requirement for all workstations to be

equipped with multiple chained CD-ROM drives. This

alternative would increase hardware required for the system.

Option 2. Brodart can continue to master the file under the

state's current disc swap methodology as specified in the

RFP. Although this methodology requires that users swap

disks, the need for additional CD-ROM drives is eliminated.

With this option the catalog would be spanned across the
discs as follows:

o Monographs - 2 discs
0 Serials File - 1 disc
* Supplement File - 1 disc
o Short Author/Title Index - 1 disc

There are other possibilities for the efficient "split" of

the data available to the state. Brodart will be happy to



237

discuss any other Possibilities with the state should you
desire.

This is the current arrangement of the Missouri catalog.

5.5

The ability to concurrently chain CD-ROM drives together is

a function of hardware. Currently, the Hitachi 3600 series
of drives can be chained up to eight (8) concurrent drives.

5.6

The state is the sole owner of its data and the CD-ROM discs

purchased; therefore, the state retains ownership of older
versions of the catalog.

5.7

The Le Pac catalog produced will be in compliance with ISSO
Standard 9660 for format volume and file structure. Should
this specification change at any time during the contract
period, Brodart will notify the state prior to product
delivery.

5.8

Brodart's current production of the catalog has the index
file (short author and title) contained on one CD-ROM disc
as specified in the RFP. Brodart will continue to produce
this index on one disc, if required by the state.

6. Search Software Requirements

6.1 Search Software Capabilities

6.1.1

Le Pac is menu driven and each menu provides the user with
the full range of options available at that point in
operation.



238

6.1.2

When a Le Pac catalog is mastered to operate in a multiple
disc swapping configuration, each search is saved in memory
while the user inserts the proper disc. The search is then

automatically executed on the "correct" disc without the

need to re-enter the search criteria.

6.1.3

The system functions with all versions of MS-DOS extension.

6.2
6.2.1

Le Pac functions in two modes, Browse Access and Express
Access. More experienced searchers often prefer Express
Access with its ability to combine search criteria across
multiple author, title and subject fields. More casual
searchers often prefer Browse Access for its ability to take
the user directly to the alphabetical point in the catalog
most closely matching the search criteria entered.

6.2.2

Le Pac allows users to select a display format (public
access, ILL, full MARC or reference desk).

The ability to create, display and print bibliographies is
in development and is scheduled for release with the next
edition of the software (Fall 91).

6.3

Brodart will provide a state-wide, unlimited number of
workstation licenses to the state for the cost of seven
thousand dollars ($7,000.00) per year. This includes the Le
Pac Public Access License and the Le Pac Professional
licenses. Complete information detailing the Le Pac
Professional options has been provided at Attachment B. The
Le Pac Professional options included for this price are:

o Interlibrary Loan (print or download to disk version)

Bibliographic Maintenance

Holdings Update



239

* Save

Please see "EXHIBIT A - PRICING PAGE" on page 36 for
complete pricing information.

6.4

Brodart will provide the software on 5 1/4" floppy
diskettes.

7. SPECIFIC SEARCH SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS:

7.1

With Le Pac, any indexed field can be searched. Searching is
keyworded through use of the "ANYWORD" field and searches
(excluding number searches) are left-to-right, direct order
searches. The index field requested in Section 7.1, items a.
through d. can all be selected as index points, Brodart has
provided one mastering cost for any fields the state may
wish to choose as index points. There is no charge for
additional index points. Please see "EXHIBIT A - PRICING
PAGE" on page 36 for complete pricing information.

7.2
7.2.1

Searches can be limited by publication date, material format
and language.

7.2.2

Searches can be terminated at any time and the user can be
returned to the main menu.

7.2.3

Currently, Le Pac can print screens. Enhanced record
printing capabilities, including the capability to print
bibliographies, are in development and will be available
with the upcoming release of the software in the Fall of
1991.



240

7.2.4

After a search has been entered a brief title screen display
search results. The user then selects from this list.

7.3

7.3.1

With Le Pac context sensitive "HELP" is available to users
at any point in operation through use of the "F/1" key. A
full help menu is available to the user through a single
keystroke.

7.3.2

Le Pac provides error messages to users instructing them as
to actions that may be taken at any given point in
operation.

7.3.3

Le Pac is not case sensitive.

7.3.4

When multiple search terms are entered in any one search
field, Le Pac ignores extra blank spaces between the terms.

7.3.5

Le Pac provides a "brief record" screen which lists the
search results. The user, through use of the light bar, mayselect a particular title and Le Pac will then display therecord. Four formats for display are available, with a shortpublic access display containing holdings data as thedefault display. The user may also select to have the recorddisplay in full MARC format, interlibrary loan format or
reference desk format,

7.3.6

The product currently produced by Brodart for the state,displays sorted holdings data as a four character display.In the future, if the state desires, Brodart will expand



241

holdings data to display a five character code. This will

require special programming.

7.3.7

When a search results in a listing exceeding one screen, the

user may scroll through the records.

7.3.8

When multiple terms are used in a search, the Boolean "and"

is the implied operator. Le Pac also supports the Boolean

operators of "or" and "not".

7.3.9

The system will search on whatever is contained in the

record. For example, if "1984" is entered in the title

field, the Orwell classic will be retrieved.

7.3.10

Local call numbers are displayed with the holdings symbol.

7.4

Le Pac Multi-Level Location Searching allows the user to

search either just the holdings symbol of its current

location or the entire catalog can be searched.
Additionally, when no match is retrieved from a search the

system prompts the user to expand the search. This is

accomplished through a pop-up window and the user may then

depress the "ALT E" key combination to automatically expand

the search. Search criteria need not be re-entered.

7.4

Le Pac runs "on top" of these applications and will not

interfere with operation. The CD-ROM drive address is
modifiable through MS-DOS.

7.6

Currently, supplements can be created and down-loaded to a

hard disk drip. A recent Le Pac enhancement allows
supplemental bibliographic data to be created on a local



242

hard disk drive, In both cases, the search software access

both the CD and the hard disk drive seamlessly and
simultaneously. The same key functions are used.

7.7

7.7.1

Users can select from the multiple title screen through use

of the light bar and "ENTER" key a title and then display

additional information on that title, including complete
holdings data and call number.

7.7.2

User can "step back" through previous searches through use

of the "F/8" recall keys.

7.7.3

Express Access allows users to create combination searches
with entries in the "Author", "Title", "Subject", "Anyword"
and "Location" fields in combination.

7.7.4

Le Pac allows for specific phrase searching. User can
accomplish this by enclosing the search terms in quotation

("") marks.

7.7.5

In Browse, truncation is implicit after the entry of as few

as one character. In Express Access users can enter a

"wildcard" character indicated by the asterisks (*). Such
as:

comput*

and retrieve all the entries containing, computer,
computing, etc.

7.8



243

7.8.1

Le Pac displays the percentage of the catalog searched.
There are no plans to display the number of records
retrieved.

7.8.2

In Browse Access, the user is taken directly to the point in
the catalog most closely matching the search criteria
entered regardless of whether it is an exact match or not.

7.8.3

Le Pac offers a Browse Access capability.

7.8.5

User can step back through previous searches and modify
them.

7.8.6

Simple queries take approximately 1-2 seconds. A sample Le
Pac Response Time Test is provided at Attachment C. To a
great extent, response time is a function of the hardware
used.

7.9

The state may add additional indexes by notifying Brodart
thirty (30) days prior to data input cut-off date.

7.10

These fields will be added upon request at no additional
cost.

INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS



244

8.1.
8.1.1

Selected records can be copied to a hard or floppy disk in
MARC format.

8.1.2

Search results can be saved into an ASCII file.

8.1.3

Exit to DOS can be accomplished through use of the ALT/X key
combination.

8.2

Catalog cards can be printed locally using the Le Pac
Professional options.

9. TRAINING AND DOCUMENTATION

9.1

A comprehensive reference manual will be provided with each
set of Le Pac discs and software.

9.2

Brodart will provide the training sessions as requested in
the RFP. We will provide the training as requested in the
RFP at no additional charge. Training above that specified
in the RFP will be charged at the rate of four hundred
dollars ($400.00) per day plus expenses. Please see "EXHIBIT
A - PRICING PAGE" on page 36 for pricing information.

9.3

Product enhancements will be provided at no extra charge as
they become available.



245

10. DISTRIBUTION

10.1

As with all Brodart customers, the state is the sole owner
of its database. Brodart will create the spin off products
for individual libraries upon request. Please see "EXHIBIT A
- PRICING PAGE" on page 36 for pricing information.

10.2

Brodart will deliver the tapes as requested in the RFP.
Pricing information for this service has been provided in
"EXHIBIT A -PRICING PAGE" on page 36.

11. STATEWIDE DATABASE MAINTENANCE

11.1

Le Pac Professional options will provide the state with an
efficient cost effective method of performing maintenance on
the database. Brodart will process the updates for inclusion
in the next edition of the catalog. Optionally, the state
can continue to perform database maintenance as they have in
the past. Brodart will process the transactions for
inclusion in the next product.

11.2

Brodart will provide 9-Track tape copies of individual
libraries' databases upon request. Please see "EXHIBIT A -
PRICING PAGE" on page 36 for pricing information.

11.3

Missouri libraries can process additions, changes, and
deletions to the catalog on floppy diskette. The diskettes
can be forwarded to Brodart for inclusion in the next
edition of the catalog.

Brodart has also provided information detailing our
InterActive Access System (IAS) our online bibliographic
utility. IAS will provide the state with a real-time method
of performing database maintenance in an on-line



246

environment. The state of Kansas, also a Brodart customer,
is currently using IAS to perform extensive database clean-
up work. We will provide pricing for this option upon
request. A full description of IAS has been provided at
Attachment D. Included with this description is a copy of
the Spring 1991 issue of InterAction. This issue features an
article by Bruce Flanders, Director of Technology, Kansas
State Library, detailing the Kansas state library's use of
the IAS system for its database maintenance and clean up
needs.

12. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

12.1

Brodart's CD-ROM, Le Pac customer list is most extensive. Wehave provided a list of customers closely representing the
state of Missouri's catalog in size and composition at
Attachment E.

12.2

Brodart will correct any and all software errors or "bugs"
should they occur.

12.3

Brodart has been a leader in the library community for overfifty (50) years. A brief history of our overall library
experience and our extensive experience in the library
automation market has been provided at Attachment F.
Brodart's experience in the creation of CD-ROM public accesscatalogs is unmatched. In 1985, Brodart was the first
company to provide this technology to libraries.

12.4

Brodart has provided pricing for this service in "EXHIBIT A- PRICING PAGE on page 36. The pricing provided assumes ourstandard specifications and standard collections.



247

12.5

Upon termination of the contract, Brodart will provide the
state with a copy of the database at no cost.

13. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

13.1

Noted

13.2

Noted.

PART THREE - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS

Except as otherwise noted in "PART TWO - SCOPE OF WORK" on
page 2, Brodart will comply with the contractual stipulation
of this section. Pricing has been provided in "EXHIBIT A -
PRICING PAGE" on page 3-.

PART FOUR - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Submission of Proposals

1.1

Noted. Brodart has completed the required forms and they
have been signed as indicated.

1.1.1

The original Form P-92 has been signed and is included in a
sealed envelope in the front of this proposal.

1.1.2

Noted.

1.1.3

Noted.



248

1.2

Noted.

1.3

Noted. Brodart has organized this proposal to mirror the
format in which it was originally forwarded to us. We have
used the state's numbering and naming conventions. Cross
references have been provided. Additional information has
been provided by way of attachments and has been so
identified.

1.3.1

Noted. Each section has followed the state's recommended
format. With the exception of supplemental material
identified as attachments, the information has been grouped
according to the state's organizational conventions.

1.3.2

Noted. The originally signed Form P-92 is provided in a
sealed envelope at the front of this proposal.

1.4

The request bid bond has been provided in a sealed envelope
at the front of this proposal. Only an original has been
provided.

2. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS

2.1

Noted.

2.2

Noted.

2.3

Noted.



249

2.4

Noted.

2.5

Noted.

2.6

Noted

3. EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1

Noted.

3.2

Noted. Brodart will attend a question and answer period if
required by the state.

3.3

Noted.

3.4

Noted.

3.5.

Noted.

4. CONTRACT AWARD

4.1

Noted.



250

4.2

Noted.

5. Pricing

5.1

Unit prices ONLY have been provided in "EXHIBIT A - PRICING
PAGE" on page 36. Pricing extensions, if required, will be
provided upon request, provided quantities required are
specified.

5.2

Noted.

5.3

Noted.

5.4

Noted.

5.4.1

Noted. As previously stated, Brodart has provided unit
pricing only. Extensions, if required, will be provided upon
request and receipt of quantity required information.

5.4.2

Noted.

5.4.3

Noted.

5.4.4

Noted. The special programming fee quoted in "EXHIBIT A -
PRICING PAGE" on page 36 is for additional special
programming.

5.4.5

Noted.



251

6. OFFEROR'S EXPERIENCE AND RELIABILITY

6.1

Brodart has provided name, address and contact person
information along with a detailed project summary for some
of our larger customers whose requirements closely match
those of the state of Missouri. These references and project
summaries can be found at Attachment E.

6.2

The information requested in this section can be found at
Attachment E, Project Summaries. Responses to items,
6.2.1,6.2.2 and 6.2.3 have also been included in this
attachment.

6.3

Brodart's Financial data is provided at Attachment G.

6.4

A sample Le Pac response time test was conducted and the
results can be found at Attachment C. Response time is, to a
great extent, a function of the hardware used.

6.6

A sample of the Missouri database, currently produced by
Brodart has been provided at Attachment H. Please note: only
one copy of this sample has been provided with the original
response. Additional samples, if required, will be provided
upon request.

7. EXPERTISE OF OFFEROR'S PERSONNEL

7.1

Please see Attachment I for resumes of the personnel that
will be assigned to manage all aspects of the production of
the state's CD-ROM database.



252

7.2

For matters of a contractual nature, the state may contact:

Mr. Ron Van Fleet
Brodart Automation
500 Arch Street

Williamsport, PA 17705
1 800-233-8467, ext 640

For matters of a technical or service related nature, the
state may contact

Ms Linda Craner
Brodart Automation
500 Arch Street

Williamsport, PA 17705
1-800-233-8467, ext 640

Mr. VanFleet's and Ms Craner's resumes have been provided at
Attachment I.

7.3

Brodart has also provided information regarding other
personnel that will be assigned to the project in Exhibit C.

7.4

Brodart does not required additional staff members to
accomplish this project according to specifications. Should
additional staff be required, Brodart will provide
information detailing their backgrounds and experience upon
request.

7.5

Nubro Inc. is a General Partner of Brodart Co. Nubro Inc.'s
Corporate Income Tax ID number is 12950250. Brodart Co
(partner) Sales Tax ID number is 11964928. Under its current
organization Brodart is authorized to conduct business in
the state of Missouri.



253

8. PROPOSED METHOD OF PERFORMANCE
8.1

Brodart's proposed method of performance has been detailed
in "PART TWO - SCOPE OF WORK" on page 2. As requested, that
information has not been repeated in this section.

8.2

A narrative description of the method in which Brodart
proposes to satisfy the requirements in the RFP has been
provided in "1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS" on page 2. As
requested, that information has not been repeated in this
section.

8.2.1 HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY

a. Le Pac is essentially compatible with any IBM PC or true
compatible with 640K RAM, a single accessible drive and a
CD-ROM drive. As the current provider of the state's
catalog, we are aware of the kinds and types of hardware
currently in use in the state's libraries. This hardware is
known to be compatible. The catalog we are proposing in this
RFP will be compatible with these existing workstations.

b. For continued basic Le Pac operation, no additional
hardware will be required, (except for the addition of net
Le Pac sites in the state). For the Le Pac Professional
options we are proposing a hard disk drive will be required.
Hard disk drives are available from Brodart Automation at
the following prices:

LE PAC HARDWARE (Memorex Telex Model 7045)

Configuration

Processor 80286
Accessible drip 3.5" 1.44 MB

(5 1/4" at same)
Video adaptor VGA
Parallel ports 1
Serial ports 2
8 bit slots 1
16 bit slots 5
Keyboard w/custom keycaps 1
MS-DOS 1
MS-DOS extensions 1

MTC MODEL 7045: $1,f515 .00/unit4



254

MAINTENANCE

On-site:
Depot:

$275. 00/year
$250.00/year

ADD ON PRICING

MONITORS
VGA Color:
VGA Black & White:

FLOPPY DRIVES
360 KB 5 1/4:
1.2 MB 5 1/4:

CD ROM DRIVES
Internal:
External.

HARD DRIVES
20 MB Hard Drive:
40 MB Hard Drive:

PRINTER
Dot Matrix (model 1173):

$405.00
$155.00

$125.00
$150.00

$530.00
$590.00

$465.00
$465.00

$483.00

Compatible hardware can also be purchased from a local
hardware dealer, if desired.

3. Hitachi is the recommended drive; however, drives from
Philips and Sony are known to be compatible. MS-Dos
extensions will be required for non-Hitachi drives.

4. Basic unit does NOT include drive and monitor.

5. On-site maintenance is only available to libraries within
a 74 mile radius of a Memorex Telex
Service Center.

6. Hard disk drive will be required for the Le Pac
Professional options.



255

5.4

Sophisticated data compression technology allows us to most
fully use the tremendous storage Capacity of the CD-ROM
disc. We have successfully processed one million (1,000,000)
titles on just one compact disc. When dealing with a
bibliographic database the size of the state of Missouri's,
the vendor's ability to fully utilize the storage capacity
of the CD-ROM disc is of key importance to the cost of the
project. Additional discs escalate costs in both the areas
of disc replication and the requirement for additional CD-
ROM drives. Brodart's ability to contain more titles per
disc than any other CD-ROM vendor gives the state a
considerable cost savings.

Brodart can process the catalog among the discs in any of
several different "split" methodologies. Brodart is
confident that the state's catalog will "fit" on only five
CDs, including the state's supplement file and the index
file disc currently required to tell users the correct disc
to use for each search entered.

Essentially, the file can be mastered in one of two ways.

Option 1 Brodart can master the file as one file spanning
multiple Cbs. The search software would be set to search the
entire file simultaneously as one (1) file. Through this
method, the user is not required to switch or swap discs and
the requirement for index CO is eliminated. The clear
disadvantage is the requirement for all workstations to be
equipped with multiple chained CD-ROM drives. This
alternative would increase hardware required for the system.

Option 2. Brodart can continue to master the file under the
state's current disc swap methodology as specified in the
RFP. Although this methodology requires that users swap
disks, the need for additional CD-ROM drives is eliminated.
With this option the catalog would be spanned across the
discs as follows:'

o Records 1-4 discs
* Serials (MVLSP) File - 1 disc
o Short Author, Title Index - 1 disc

There are other possibilities for the efficient "split" of
the data available to the state. Brodart will be happy to
discuss any other possibilities with the state should you
desire.

This is the current arrangement of the Missouri catalog.



256

8.2.2

In our many years of processing bibliographic input, we have
always been able to process MARC formatted data. Brodart
will be happy to analyze any input source tapes the state
may be Considering for inclusion in the catalog to help
insure a Continued quality display of the data in the
catalog. We have provided information detailing our
bibliographic data processing procedures in general and a
section describing our current handling of the Missouri
file. This information can be found in Attachment 3.
Generally speaking, Brodart will require ninety (90) days
lead time to perform proper analysis of all new input
sources from the state.

8.2.3 AUTHORITY CONTROL

Brodart has provided information detailing our authority
control processing procedures at Attachment A.

8.2.4 CD-ROM DISC CREATION

a. The Le Pac disc conforms to High Sierra Group (ISSO
9660) standards for volume and file structure.

b. Brodart is confident the entire catalog will fit on
only six CDs. This will include the master index disc
required by the RFP, four discs for records, and the
disc required for the serials (MULSP) file.

c. Brodart data compression techniques allow us to
fully use the tremendous storage capacity of the CD-ROM
disc. We have included over one million records on a
single CD-ROM disc. To our knowledge, this amount is
approximately 200,000 to 400,000 more records than can
be processed by other vendors. It must be understood,
however, that the number of records that can be
contained on a single disc is, to a great extent,
dependent upon the size, composition and holdings data
of the records. Our record count for number of records
on a disc is based on complete, full MARC records with
holdings data included. In many cases the number of
records that can be placed on a single CD-ROM disc is
based on the composition of the file and the records
themselves. To our knowledge, we can contain more
records on a single disc than any other vendor.

8.2.5 Search Software

a. A copy of our standard Master Service Agreement
(MSA) has been provided at Attachment K.



257

b. Information detailing our planned enhancements to
our product line has been provided at Attachment L.

c. With Le Pac's Express Access "ANYWORD' feature, any
information in the record that has been identified as
an index point can be used as a search qualifier.
Pricing information has been provided in "EXHIBIT A -
PRICING PAGE" on page 36. This pricing includes all
fields currently indexed, plus those mentioned in the
RFP.

d. Sample error messages have been provided in
Attachment M.

e. Detailed information regrading Le Pacls Multi-Level
Location Searching feature has been provided in
Attachment N.

f. A list of Le Pac stoplisted words has been provided
at Attachment 0.

g. The Le Pac stoplisted words, (Attachment 0) are not
searched if entered alone as search criteria. However,
if entered as part of a specific phrase search, such as

"Of mice and men"

they will be searched as part of the entire search
criteria.

8.2.6 INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. Le Pac can access a printer to print screens and
other information.

b. Currently Records can be imported to a hard or
floppy disk as an ASCII file and then can be edited
with a text editor. The upcoming new release of the Le
Pac software (Fall 1991) will include the ability to
print bibliographies.

c. Brodart is also proposing the Precision OnelTfill
product line as a future option for the state to
consider. These very economical CD-ROM products give
libraries unparalleled power and performance for
performing both retrospective conversions and keeping
the catalog current. We are offering these products to
the state at the following prices:



258

Precision One R$taO0.00/copy
Includes search software and CD-ROM disc which
contains 1 million of the titles most frequently
held by school and public libraries.

Precision One Current 450.00/copy
Includes search software and one CU per month for
twelve months containing the previous two years
worth of LC cataloging, Brodart's original
cataloging and a comprehensive video collection.

If both purchased togethe$ 650.00

Le Pac is fully compatible with both these products.
Detailed information about the Precision One family of
products has been provided at Attachment P.

8.2.7

a. A copy of the Le Pac and Le Pac Professional
reference manuals has been provided at Attachment Q.

b. The Le Pac software is written in the "C"
programming language.

8.3

8.3.1 SEARCH SOFTWARE

a. Le Pac is equipped with a local information editor
which allows individual libraries to design local
information screens. Many Le Pac customers use this
feature to display special instructions, local notes
and information and items of special interest.
Additionally, local sites are able to:

* Set Multi-Level Location Searching defaults* Adjust screen reset time* Choose format (public access, reference desk, ILL,
or full MARC) display format.

b. The brief record screen displays (multiple title
screen)

displays
author, title, subject, and publication data.



259

c. In Express Access, any combination of author, title,

subject,
"anyword" and location is available.

d. When multiple "hits" are indicated, Le Pac displays
the percentage of the database searched.

e. Le Pac's Browse Access, allows users to enter
traditional search criteria, (either author, title or
subject) and the user is then taken directly to the
alphabetical point in the catalog most nearly matching
the criteria entered. The user may then browse the
short title list and make selection by moving the light
bar (up and down arrow key) to the desired item. By
depressing the "enter" key the user is then taken to
the desired record.

f. With Le Pac previous searches can be recalled and
modified without the need to reenter the entire search.

g. With Le Pac any field may be indexed and searched.
The state may make these determinations by completing
the required items in the Le Pac Product Profile Form.
A sample of this form has been provided at Attachment
R.

h. The 260 $b, Publisher, 505 $a Contents note, and 074
$a GPO item number fields can all be selected as index
points and searched. Current users who have selected
these fields as index points do not report any
significant impact on disc storage capacity or erosion
of response time.

I. Le Pac "ANYWORD" feature, allows for virtually
unlimited search capabilities. Additional search
features, as they are developed, will be made available
to the state.

j. Search results may be sent to a printer, or saved to
a disk. The ability to produce cards and labels is also
a function of the Le Pac Professional. (Detailed
information about this product has been provided at
Attachment B. Brodart is proposing this product in
conjunction with our Le Pac Catalog. There is no
additional charge for the inclusion of the Le Pac
Professional software and the license fee.) Please see
"EXHIBIT A - PRICING PAGE" on page 36 for pricing
information.



260

INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. When DOS is resident on the library's PC (Le
Pac NOS operating system employed), exit to DOS is
achieved through use of the ALT/X key combination
at the opening Le Pac Screen.'

b. Both the Le Pac Professional (Attachment B) and
our Precision One Products (Attachment P) have the
ability to print cards and labels.

8.4

Noted
The autoboot version of the software takes users
directly in and out of the Le Pac system.

8.5

A step-by-step description of tasks and events has been
provided at Exhibit D.

8.5.1

Exhibit D, "Schedule of Events" has also been completed.

8.6

An organizational chart, depicting staffing and appropriate
lines of authority has been provided at Attachment S.

8.3.2



[261]

IS? NO. 52011 g
Page 21 of 33

The of ferar shall provide the following information for services providedwith the terms and conditions specified herein.raol Costsassociated withrequired shall be included in the following prices.
It accordance
providingth

A Annual Edition of the Statewide Database: The offerer shall provide a total pricefor the annual edition of the statewide database. The total price shall includeall costs for the creaftion of the statewide database based on 3.5 aillionbibliographic records, authority osmtrol, producing the aster CS40d *iscs, tooopies of the cD-ton product, two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape Copies, providing;400 copies of the software doceuentation/user amnal, software license, training,ec The offeror shall provide a price for aCh asditoial espy of the CMoproduct and software doceentation/user naval in excess ef 400 copies Theofferor shall Alsoprovide a price per bibliographic record a excess of 3*5bibliograpfticrecords, hr e of fror shall provide firm, fixed prices for theOriginal Contract Period and mazia prices for each extension period.
Annual Edition of the Statewide Database:

Original Contract Period:
First Extension Period:
Second Extension Period:
Third Extension Period:

Based on:
160,650.00 total3.5 million record
*..1530n.. total:s,575, 000 records*Jiia2ZW-2-- total 3,650,000 record
lma t,0L-totai.3,325.000 rsee..-

CDwROM Product and So! tware DocumientacionmUser Mnuatl Lin eces of AAssumes 6 disc set. Additional discs are $15.00 per disc/copya. Original Contract Period:$2-10 
per c1b. First Extension Period: per c

c. Second Extension Period:$ - per ed. Third Extension Period: $ rVG
'Sibliographic Record in excess of 3.5 million bibliographic records:

00 copies.

epy
spy

'SPY

a. Original Contract Period: 
per recordb. First Extension periods per r$perarcorde. Second Extension period: per recordd. Third Extension period: per record

*Includes everything listed i A boy per record5. Statevide Database Seppleent: The of ferer shallow eattal price for thestatewide database supplement. The total prices shall iacludeall costs for thecreation of the statewide database supplement, producing the aster lDtoh discs,400 copies of the CD-RO product, two genetic 1600 bpi "ACII tape copiessetc.The offerer shall also provide a price for each copy of the Cw product providedin excess of 400 copies. The offerer shall provide fi i, fixed prices for theOriginal Contract and maxima prices for each extension period.
* Statewide Database Supplement:
Based On average 50,000 TitZ&'Suppaenent

a. Original Contract period:
b. First Extension period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension period:

AUTh0RizafljiDmUi

7 -- total
7 -- u7- - ; total

7 - 5.ntotal
total'

*6r&
qsc w et o c un p e s c e r of discs required will Change hasGr~hrite of 71,000 unique titles per year,

a.
* b.

c.
d.

'61k /,



Page 29 of 33

*CD-10 Product in excess of 400 copies:
Based on a 250,000 title supplement

A. Original Contract Period: Per COPYb. First Extension Period:.00 per copyc. Second Extension Period: per copyd. Third Extension Period: 
per copy

C. Customized Changess: The offerer shall provide a price per hour for providingCustomized changes in the search software pursuant to the state agency's request.The of feror shall provide a f in, fixed Price for the *riginal Contract Period and amaxima price for each extension period.
a. Original Contract Period: 

per hour programingb. First Extension ories: 
per hor programmingc. Second Extension Period:. 
per hour programingd. Third Extension Period:= 
per hour provrbfinr

D. Spinoff Product: The offeror shall provide a price per record for th creation of aspinoff product on a CD-ROM disc and a 9 Track Tape. Teofferor shell provide aprice CD-ROM Disc and per I Track Tape. The offerr shall provide a fin, fiedprice of the original contract period and a meximis price for each extension period.NOTE: Extraction fee below, is waived for the production of Brodart products.*CD-ROM Disc
a. Original Contract Period: *005j pr record $1J00 per discb. First Extension Period: per c rerd J per discc. Second Extension Period: per record Wt iper discd. Third Extension Period: per record ARper disc*AllrPrices are plus extraction fee (5.002 on file retracted from)n9 Track Tape
a. Original Contract Period: per record per dis.b. First Extension Period: *cr.y ... per record .. . per disc. Second Extension Period: 

try sper record * . per discd. Third Extension Period: . 4&... per reerd *Sper disc"1250 .00 per 250,000 title Plus U5.00/rel.Shelf list: IfProposed, the olreor mat provide a price per record for the creationof a machine readable catalog record from printed shelflist Is USKARC format. Theofferor shall provide a f in fixed price for the fiimal contract period and amaxima price for each extension period.
a. Original Contract Period: 8.52b. First Extension Period: 

per recordc. Second Extension Period: 
per recordd. Third Extension Period: 
per record*Assuming standard specification and standard collecflni per record7. The offerer must provide a total price per library for any additional hardware neededto operate the search software. The total price shall include the cost of theequipment and installation. The offeror shall provide a fir fixed price for theoriginal contract period and a axia price for each mtensio period.'Assumes libraries cure ntly using workstations as disCussed in Prt Two, Scope of work,a. Original Contract Period: $ N 4~A per record itemb. First Extension Period: 
per recordc. Second Extension Period: 
per recordd. Third Extension Period: 
per record

The firm, fixed prices stated above are provided is accordance with the termaconditions.of 52114.

A V U RItC7 January 28, 1992
ATE

( 262 j



[ 263 ]

I?? NO. 3201148
Page 30 of 33

WMEIBIT I

PRICE ANALYSIS

Annual Edition of the Statewide Database

1. Creation of the Statewide Database

2. Authority Control

3. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc

4. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product

5. Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies

6. 400 Copies of the Software Documentation/User Manual

7. List Other:

Statewide Software Licensing Fee

S No Chpa..ge_

$ .0075/title

$ .023/title

$ 15.00/disc/cop

$250.00/250,oo titles

$ Included 
+25.00/r(

$ 7.l00 flO/yn
*

TOTAL (See price quoted for 00001 on the Pricing Page) $

Statewide Database Supplemet

1. Creation of the Statewide Database

2. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc

3. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product

4. Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies

7. List Other:

$No Charce

$.023

$15.00/disc con

$250.00/2So.ooo titles
+$25.00/r

*

$

*

TOTAL (See price quoted for 00003 on the Pricing Page) $

.... _ ___ ___._-_January 28, 1992
AUTHOR IZYSIG.NATURE DATE



264

Proposal from Auto-Graphics.

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This document constitutes a request for
competitive, sealed proposals from qualified
individuals and organizations to provide services
in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth herein.

2. ORGANIZATION

2.1 This document, referred to as a Request for
Proposal (RFP) has been divided into the following
parts for the convenience of the offeror:

2.1.1 Part One - General Information
2.1.2 Part Two - Scope of Work
2.1.3 Part Three - General Contractual

Requirements
2.1.4 Part Four - Proposal Submission

Information
2.1.5 Part Five - Exhibits

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 In order to enhance resource sharing and library
automation at local, regional, and statewide
levels, the Missouri State Library has contracted
for the creation of a statewide database of
bibliographic holdings and records and search
software on CD-ROM discs. The CD-ROM discs
contain records and holdings symbols for libraries
throughout the state of Missouri. The project
links libraries of all sizes and types and ensures
that all Missouri residents have access to the
materials and information they need.

3.2 Currently, the statewide database contains
approximately 3.5 million unique records and 8
million holdings. The Missouri State Library



265

3.3 Currently, the records and holdings are on 9 track
tape in a MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging)
format from Brodart Automation. Approximately 85
OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) and 100 non-
OCLC three character symbols are on the tapes. The
records and holdings from other libraries come
from a variety of cataloging sources.

3.4 Over 185 public and academic libraries in Missouri
have purchased CD-ROM disc players. Approximately
110 public libraries purchased Epson Equity 1 +
libraries bought Hitachi 1503s CD-ROM disc
players. A number of public microcomputers and
Hitachi 1503s CD-ROM disc players. Seventy
academic libraries also acquired Bibliofile to
help them convert local records to machine
readable form.

3.5 The primary purpose of the statewide database was
as a locator for interlibrary loan. The statewide
database enables libraries to do interlibrary loan
and provides access to collections across the
state which have not been available previously.
However, usage reports suggest that the statewide
database has been used increasingly for reference
and cataloging purposes including the generation
of MARC records for internal automation efforts.

This document constitutes a request for sealed
proposals, including prices, from qualified individuals
and organizations to furnish those services and/or
items as described herein.

Proposals must be mailed to the Division of Purchasing,
P.O. Box 809, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, or hand-
carried to its offices in Room 580, Harry S. Truman
Building, Jefferson City, Missouri.



266

NOTES ON PRICING PAGES

A-G understands the State's requirement for firm, fixed
prices, and has quoted prices on this basis. However,
insofar as these prices are based upon the information
provided in the State's RFP, we reserve the right to apply
the same unit prices quoted to such orders as may exceed the
quantities described in the RFP, or quote additional prices
to cover variations in processing not originally requested.
Alternatively, A-G will accept the State's prior written
instruction to limit processing to quantities originally
forecast, thus avoiding the application of any additional
charges.

1. Annual Edition of the Statewide Database

A. original Contract Period

1.1 Creation of the statewide database based on data
preparation for 185 libraries $50.00 $9,250.00

1.2 Authority control (including validation and
replacement, and catalog cross-references for names and
subjects) based on 3,500,000 existing database records
+ 500,000 added input records = 4,000,000
records $0.008 $32,000.00

1.3 Producing the CD-ROM master discs (including data
compression, indexing, premastering, and mastering)
based on 4,000,000 records @ $0.0095 = $38,000.00

1.4 Copies of the CD-ROM product; assuming 600 sets of 4
discs $15.00/disc $36,000.00

1.5 Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies based on
4,000,000 records $0.0005 X 2 sets $4,000.00

1.6 Providing copies of the software documentation/user
manual based on an annual statewide system license
covering the Patron, Expert, Research, Location
Scoping, System Administration, and Catalog Maintenance
modules, plus initial provision of and updates for one
user manual per site. Covers use of and support for
software by any library within the state. Annual
license fee due upon delivery of initial catalog and at
each contract renewal $29,250.00

Total firm, fixed price for original contract period
$148,500.00



267

B. First Extension Period (7/1/92 - 6/30/93)

1.1 Creation of the statewide database; i.e., maintenance
for 185 libraries $50,00 $9,250.00

1.2 Authority control (including validation and
replacement, plus generation of catalog cross-
references for names and subjects) based on 1,000,000
additional input records $0.008 $8,000.00

1.3 Producing the CD-ROM master discs (including data
compression, indexing, premastering, and mastering)
based on 4,500,000 records $0.0095 $ 42,750.00

1.4 Copies of the CD-ROM product; assuming 600 sets of 5
discs $15.00/disc $ 45,000.00

1.5 Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies based on
4,500,000 records $0.0005 X 2 sets $ 4,500.00

1.6 Providing copies of the software documentation/user
manual based on an annual statewide system license
covering the Patron, Expert, Research, Location
Scoping, System Administration, and Catalog Maintenance
modules, plus initial provision of and updates for one
user manual per site. Covers use of and support for
software by any library within the state. Annual
license fee due upon delivery of initial catalog and at
each contract renewal S 29,250.00

Maximum price for first extension
period $138,750.00

C. Second Extension Period (7/1/93 - 6/30/94)

1.1 Creation of the statewide database; i.e.,
maintenance for 185 libraries $50.00 $9,250.00

1.2 Authority control (including validation and
replacement, plus generation of catalog cross-
references for names and subjects) based on
1,000,000 additional input records $0.008
$8,000.00

1.3 Producing the CD-ROM master discs (including data
compression, indexing, premastering, and
mastering) based on 5,000,000 records $0.0095 $
47,500.00

1.4 Copies of the CD-ROM product; assuming 600
sets of 5 discs $15.00/disc $ 45,000.00



268

1.5 Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies based on
5,000,000 records $0.0005 X 2 sets $5,000.00

1.6 Providing copies of the software documentation/
user manual based on an annual statewide system
license covering the Patron, Expert, Research,
Location Scoping, System Administration, and
Catalog Maintenance modules, plus initial
provision of and updates for one user manual per
site. Covers use of and support for software by
any library within the state. Annual license fee
due upon delivery of initial catalog and at each
contract renewal $ 29,250.00

Maximum price for second extension period $144,000.00

D. Third Extension Period (7/1/94 - 6/30/95)

1.1 Creation of the statewide database; i.e,,
maintenance for 185 libraries $50.00 $9,250.00

1.2 Authority control (including validation and
replacement, plus generation of catalog cross-
references for names and subjects) based on
1,000,000 additional input records

$0.008 $ 8,000.00

1.3 Producing the CD-ROM master discs (including data
compression, indexing, premastering, and
mastering) based on 5,500,000 records
@ $0.0095 $52,250.00

1.4 Copies of the CD-ROM product; assuming 600 sets of
6 discs $15.00/disc $54,000.00

1.5 Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies based on
5,500,000 records $0.0005 X 2 sets $5,5oo.oo

1.6 Providing copies of the software documentation/
user manual based on an annual statewide system
license covering the Patron, Expert, Research,
Location Scoping, System Administration, and
Catalog Maintenance modules, plus initial
provision of and updates for one user manual per
site. Covers use of and support for software by
any library within the state. Annual license fee
due upon delivery of initial catalog and at each
contract renewal $ 29,250.00



269

Maximum price for third extension period $158,250.00

II. Statewide Database Supplement

A. original Contract Period and Extension Periods

1.1 Creation of the statewide database supplement
including authority control processing of added
records, per supplement record $0.0175

1.2 Producing the CD-ROM master discs (including
indexing, premastering, and mastering), each
supplement edition $1,950.00

1.4 Copies of the CD-ROM product; assuming 600 single
disc supplements $15.00 $9,000.00

1.5 Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies based on
500,000 records $0.0005 X 2 sets $500.00

III. Data input from sources defined on pricing pages

3.1 Tape

Prices shown apply to input records received for
processing into the catalog. Prices assume records
contain minimum data needed to a) establish location
code and local call number, and b) compare data against
existing database records for merging purposes.

3.2 Disk

A handling charge of $25.00 per diskette will be
applied to input received on floppy diskette.
Otherwise, charges for input on magnetic tapes are
identical to charges for input on MS-DOS diskettes.

4. Programming

Programming will be charged at the fixed rate quoted.
Changes requested in addition to the specifications
contained in the present RFP are subject to negotiation
and scheduling.



270

5. Spinoff products

5.1 CD-ROM disc

Prices shown are intended to be identical to prices

quoted for publishing the statewide CD-ROM supplement.

5.2 9-track tape

Minimum charge of $975.00 will be applied once to cover
multiple tape sets when sets are ordered concurrently.

6. Conversion

Additional charges may apply for additional customer
requested keying; e.g. for copy-level data such as bar
code numbers. Prices shown cover input of converted
records to statewide database. If separate output
products are requested, spinoff charges quoted above
will apply.

PROPOSED METHOD OF PERFORMANCE

A. Response to Specifications in Scope of Work

This section of our proposal responds point-by-point to
the specifications under "Scope of Work" (RFP Part
Two), and also includes the information requested under
RFP items 8.2 and 8.3. A sequential narrative
outlining the steps involved in producing the statewide
database on CD-ROM follows this section.

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Having created statewide databases on CD-ROM for
Connecticut, Maryland, Tennessee, and other
states, provinces, and large consortia, A-G
understands the general requirements of the RFP.
For this project, we propose to:

a. Accept a copy of the current Missouri
database of some 3.5 million unique titles
provided by Brodart, and reformat and index
this file for CD-ROM publication.

b. Reformat and merge an additional 500,000
titles provided by participating libraries
from various cataloging sources.



271

c. Apply standard authority control processing
to the merged database.

d. Publish the merged data base on a set of 4-6

CD-ROM discs and produce 400-600 copies of
the CD, software and documentation for use by
participating libraries.

e. Produce annual catalogs and interim
supplements on CD in the same manner,
processing some 1 million titles each year
for this purpose. The statewide database
will be maintained by A-G, such that only new
input will need to be processed for each
update.

2. HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY

All of the equipment described is known .to be
compatible with our software and CDs. IMPACT
requires a fully IBM-compatible 8088, 80286, or
80386 PC with:

o 640K RAM

o At least one 1.2MB or higher capacity floppy

disk drive

o MS-DOS version 3.2 or higher

o Standard keyboard, preferably with the ten
function keys on the left side

o Monochrome or color monitor with graphics

card

* Minimum of one CD-ROM drive; the system
supports access to multiple drives. Any
model equipped with MS-DOS CD-ROM Extensions
version 2.0 or higher can be used.

Most libraries are currently purchasing 80286 machines with
a 40MB hard disk, since this configuration represents a
better value, dollar-for dollar, than the older XT-level
machines. However, the basic system runs fine (but not as
fast) on an 8088 machine with a high-density floppy drive,



272

and hundreds of libraries continue to use the catalog on the

original XT platform.

If existing equipment is to be used, some modifications may

be necessary, depending upon the current configurations in

use. Assuming that the existing PC is itself compatible,
necessary modifications might typically include upgrading
RAM from 512K to 640K or 1MB, replacing a 360K floppy drive

with a high density drive, adding one or more CD-ROM drives

and/or installing MS-DOS Extensions. Optional upgrades

might include the addition of a printer, modem, hard disk or

second floppy drive, or a VGA color monitor.

Systems known to be incompatible include certain high-end

IBM PS/2 models (PS/2 model 70 and above). Also, neither

Apple nor Macintosh equipment will support our software,
which requires a fully IBM PC-compatible machine. Hitachi,

Sony, Amdek, Toshiba, NEC, and Phillips CD-ROM drives are

all known to be compatible, given the use of Microsoft

Extensions. We have no information about the compatibility
of models offered by Pioneer and DENON, but assume these

would be compatible if a High Sierra driver is available.

We understand that the Phillips model CM155 does not support

such a driver and would therefore not support the system.

For libraries wishing to purchase new equipment, we

recommend the following configuration, and will guarantee a

purchase price of less than $2,000 per unit for orders

placed through the State Library during the initial contract

period. This price includes a one-year warranty. Extended

service contracts are available at an annual cost equal to

10% of the original purchase price.

Recommended 80286 IMPACT Cataloging Station*

80286 12MHz CPU with 1MB RAM One internal Hitachi CD-ROM

drive 40MB 28ms hard disk drive One 5.25" or 3.5" high

density floppy disk drive 12" monochrome monitor with

graphics card** 101 keyboard with function keys on left 200

watt power supply One parallel and two serial ports Front

security panel with standard IMPACT signage*** All cabling

and connectors MS-DOS version 3,3 and Extensions Shipping to

individual site One year warranty

* Dial access would require the addition of a standard

modem and off-the-shelf telecommunications software.

A VGA monitor with card can be substituted for this
monitor at time of order at an additional charge.



273

Each catalog station's front panel provides complete
protection for internal CD-ROM and floppy disk drives,
preventing unauthorized access or tampering. Security
panels can be removed by authorized staff using the
custom tool provided, and can be exchanged from unit to

unit as needed, leaving no marks when removed. The

security panel also serves as the nameplate for each

catalog station, clearly identifying each unit as a

public access catalog. Custom signage, including
library logos, further description of the catalog, or
other information, is also available.

3. STATEWIDE DATABASE CREATION

3.1 A-G will agree to provide the first edition of the
statewide database on CD within four months of the
award of the contract, subject to the requirements
for receipt of files and specifications described
below and in the schedule of project phases
following this section. We can produce future
editions of the catalog and supplement by the
dates indicated under the same terms.

3.1.1 A-G will produce the demonstration database
within 30 days of receipt of the Brodart
USMARC tapes and final processing
specifications. Please note that, according
to the terms specified by the State, half of
the time allowed for production of the
catalog will be exhausted by the time the
demonstration database is received by the
State. Thus, it will not be possible to
address any changes desired as a result of
the State's review of the demonstration
database without affecting the schedule. A-G
will not be responsible for delays resulting
from changes initiated by the State after
processing has begun.

3.2 As a condition of our agreement with the State, A-
G will require files and file specifications for
each data source to be included. A-G will provide
profile forms and answer any questions libraries



274

may have regarding the information required, but
the State will be ultimately responsible for

ensuring that all data is received by A-G prior to

the input cutoff for each catalog or supplement.

3.2.1 We understand this to mean that the Brodart

tapes will be received in readable condition
at A-G no later than thirty days after the
date of contract award. In order to ensure
that these tapes can be processed
immediately, we will require a record count,
list of location codes, and specifications
detailing the format of location/call number
and record control number data no later than
10 days following award of the contract.
Failure of the data on the delivered tapes to
correspond to the specifications shall be
grounds for renegotiating the schedule.

3.2.2 The same conditions noted above apply to
files provided from the additional sources
listed under this item.

3.2.3 Data from the optional sources listed on the
Pricing Page can be processed under the same
terms noted above, with the following
exception: inclusion of non-MARC files and

files in which location/call number data and
MARC data are not part of the same
bibliographic record (e.g., separate item and
MARC files) will require renegotiation of the
schedule.

3.3 (Including 3.3.1 - 3.3.4). A-G will deduplicate
records from the additional sources specified
against the Brodart tapes, and retain the
preferred version from among multiple occurrences
according to the hierarchy outlined here. We
assume that the present Brodart data base has been
merged, and that the preferred version has been
kept, and will not attempt further internal
deduplication within this file. Upon receipt, the
Brodart file will be indexed by OCLC control
number (field 001) and LCCN (field 010) so that
additional files can be merged on this basis. If
the State prefers a more exacting match, selected



275

data from other MARC fields can be used to

validate LCCN matches. Deduplication by text
matching is not included in the present proposal
but can be ordered as an additional services if

desired. (Please refer to Attachment V, section
B.)

3.4 A-G's union database system (see Attachment V1
section C) supports the hierarchy described, to
the extent that this is supported by the data in

each input file or record. For example, records
must contain data on source of cataloging (MARC
field 040) and date of cataloging (MARC field 005
or file presented in chronological sequence) in
order to be considered in this hierarchy. In
order to be properly consolidated during this
process, holdings data must first be standardized
from the various formats in which it may currently
appear into a common format (A-G uses 949 $1
location code 5a local call number). A-G will
need completed profile forms for each data source
in order to reformat holdings data properly. (See
Attachment IV for sample profile forms.)

3.5 A-G will publish the MULSP database as a separate
file to be included on one of the statewide
database CDs. A-=G will provide software to
support a function key enabling users to "toggle"
between the main catalog and the MULSP serials
file. The MULSP catalog will be separately
indexed and can support different display and
scoping options from the main catalog. Also, if
summary holdings data is to be displayed, we
recommend that the State consider using the
optional Holdings Display feature designed for
display of the more extensive holdings data
associated with serials. Please refer to
Attachment III, page 123.

3.5.1 These fields can be indexed for retrieval per
the standard index arrangement described in
Attachment X. All fields listed can be
displayed, if desired. We do not find any
indication in your specification as to the
location of the holdings data within the
MULSP records, and will need further
specifications on this file if we are to
proceed.



276

3.6 Our general policy is to use the OCLC number as
the record control number where present, and to
assign a sequential number in a higher range for
non-OCLC records, and we propose to follow this
procedure here.

3.7 Generally, all 6XX fields are retained in the
database, regardless of indicator. If the State
wishes to have certain 6XX fields dropped on the
basis of tagging or indicator value to save space
or for any other reason, this would need to be
specified.

4. AUTHORITY CONTROL

4.1 Our proposal includes validation and replacement
of the entire cumulated statewide database against
the complete and up-to-date LC name and subject
authority files, plus generation of see and see
also references. Validation and replacement
processing is described in detail in Attachment
VI, section C. The generation and operation of
see and see also references are described in
Attachment VII, section B. All fields listed in
this item of the RFP are addressed, as shown in
the validation matrix appended to Attachment VI.

4.2 Our proposal includes the validation and
replacement processing as described above for the
entire initial database, and for all new records
added in subsequent updates.

4.3 See and see also references will be freshly
generated for the entire file following each
update. Cross-references are not invisible to the
user, since this would not allow users to choose
from among multiple references from the same term.
Instead, the cross reference is shown to the user,
and the user can press "Enter" to show the choices
under the referenced term, or in the case of
multiple terms, move the cursor to select the term
desired, and then press "Enter".

4.4 We have assumed that validation and replacement
processing would be applied to the initial
database, and to all records later added to the
database in the course of the contract. If the
State is satisfied with the authority control of
the Brodart database, we would be prepared to
apply validation and replacement processing only



277

to the new records added for the initial catalog,
thus reducing the cost of the initial catalog by
an estimated $24,000. Alternatively, the State
could request re-authorization of the entire
database at any time at the same per-record price.

5. CD-ROM DISC CREATION

5.1 The authorized statewide database will be indexed
and published on CD-ROM discs, as required.

5.1.1 Our proposal includes pricing based on a
minimum of 400 sets of discs. The State may
order any quantity in excess of this figure
at the unit prices quoted. We have used a
figure of 600 sets in calculating costs on
the notes accompanying the Pricing Pages. In
the event that all sets are not ordered at
the same time, the State should be aware that
the minimum order that can be processed at
these prices is 100 sets.

5.2 All of the CD-ROM drives mentioned are known to be
compatible. Please refer to item 2, above.

5.3 All IMPACT CDs are produced in the High Sierra or
ISSO 9660 format for CD volume and file structure,
and require the use of the MS-DOS Extensions.

5.4 A database totalling 4 million records could only
fit on one 640MB CD if each record, with indexes,
cross-references, and holdings, averaged less than
160 characters. Since the average length of a
generic MARC record is 600-800 characters, this
would imply unacceptably drastic reductions in the
amount of data that could be stored or indexed.
Given the fact that the present statewide database
resides on six CDs, we're sure that the State is
aware of the issues regarding the storage limits
of the CD-ROM medium.

We expect that the use of data compression will
reduce the size of the MARC record portion of the
catalog by about 60%, allowing about 920,000 full
MARC records with indexing and cross references to
fit on each CD. Depending on whether the MULSP
serials file is reflected in the totals provided,
and on the number of unique records ultimately
included in the initial catalog, we expect that
the initial catalog will require four discs, which
would grow to five or six discs as the database



278

continues to expand in subsequent updates. This
storage requirement could be arranged in several
ways:

o as 4 or 5 separate discs split by date or
some other characteristic, each searchable on
one drive, requiring disk swapping.

o as one transparently searchable 4 or 5 disc
set requiring an equivalent number of drives.

* as two separately searchable two-disc sets,
split by date, each requiring two CD-ROM
drives, possibly with a fifth disc containing
the MULSP file and non-print items.

5.5 The system will support transparent use across
multiple drives, up to the limits of the user
hardware. Depending upon the CD-ROM card used,
some machines will support up to four drives,
while others may support up to eight.

5.6 A-G will not require the return of previous
editions.

5.7 We would expect to establish the format of the
data with the State before the time of delivery,
but can certainly agree to requirement, provided
that no proprietary information is required.

5.8 As we understand it, this requirement would apply
to the first and third scenarios listed under 5.4,
above. Actually, such a disc would be unnecessary
in the third scenario, since the user would need
to make two searches the author/title index and
the CD with the actual record in any event. If
the first scenario were to be selected, AG is
willing to negotiate developing such an index disc
in a subsequent contract year and at additional
cost to the State.

6. SEARCH SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

6.1 See items below.

6.1.1 The software is function-key driven. Please
refer to Attachment VIII. The User Guide in



279

Attachment III also provides full details on
system operation.

6.1.2 Transaction-saving is not currently
supported, but could be implemented within
the initial contract period, depending upon
the hardware available, the scenario selected
(see 5.4, above), and the specific
functionality required.

6.1.3 The system currently works with version 2.0
of the MS-DOS Extensions and will be kept
compatible as new versions are released.

6.2 See items below.

6.2.1 The function key-driven approach obviates the
need for two modes of access by enabling
rapid, single keystroke progression through
all system menus and eliminating redundant
and unnecessary displays at all stages of a
search. Logically obvious choices are made
automatically by the system, not required of
the user. While system operation is
simplified for all users, system capabilities
are diversified so that novice users are led
naturally toward the least complex modes of
searching, while experienced users may skip
to more advanced techniques.

6.2.2 The System Administration model supports
local profiling of record displays. Please
refer to Attachment III, section 6.2.

6.3 A-G has quoted a license fee for an annual,
renewable statewide license that would cover use
of the software proposed by any library within the
State.

6.4 Search software will be provided on either 5.25"
or 3.5" diskettes, as preferred by the State.

7. SPECIFIC SEARCH SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

7.1 (Items a - d). All fields listed, except SuDoc
number, are currently supported and will be
indexed in the statewide database. Please refer
to Attachment X. SuDoc number access is supported
in our GDCS catalog of GPO materials, and can be



280

added to the statewide database at the programming
charges listed.

7.2 See items below.

7.2.1 The search qualification options described
are supported by the Research Level software
module (see Attachment IX), but will require
an additional index that would increase the
storage requirement for the catalog and
possibly the number of discs required.

7.2.2 The system provides an "Escape Search"
function meeting this requirement.

7.2.3 A variety of save and print functions are
supported; see Attachment III, section 5.

7.2.4 Any item may be displayed in greater detail
by highlighting the item and pressing
"Enter".

7.3 See items below.

7.3.1 Context-sensitive help menus are available
from any screen, and can be edited by library
staff at the local site or by a global
instruction from the State to include the
level of assistance thought to be required.

7.3.2 Error messages are provided as specified.

7.3.3 Case distinctions are ignored as required
here.

7.3.4 Spacing distinctions beyond a single space
are ignored as required here.

7.3.5 The system actually supports four levels,
which meet the specifications described here.
Please refer to Attachment VIII, section B.

7.3.6 Holdings will be sorted alphanumerical by
four character code, as specified. The
System Administration software also supports
a feature allowing holdings to be grouped
into up to nine separate alphabets, if
preferred. Each alphabet can also be
displayed with an assigned, separate label.
This may address the State's desire to
identify and sort holdings according to the



281

size of the library, thus obviating the need

for a five-character code. However, if
preferred, the State can designate five-

character codes for display purposes at any
time.

7.3.7 Multiple screens are supported as specified,
both for single records and for record lists.

"More" and "End" messages are displayed to

inform the user that more record/list is
available or that the end of the record/list
has been reached.

7.3.8 Implied "and" is assumed in all multi-word
keyword searches, unless explicitly
overridden using the Boolean capabilities of

the Research Level software. Explicit "and",
"or", and "not" operators can be invoked at
this level, although this would require an
additional index that would increase the
storage requirement for the catalog and
possibly the number of discs required.

7.3.9 Any alphanumeric string may be searched, as
specified.

7.3.10 Local call numbers are displayed in
association with the library holdings code,
as specified.

7.4 Location Scoping is supported, as required here.

Please refer to Attachment IX, section C, for
details of the operation of this feature.

7.5 The search software will not interfere with the

normal operation of any of the telecommunications
packages or other software listed.

7.6 Transitions between the CD and the magnetic disks

are transparent, as specified.

7.7 See items below.

7.7.1 Please refer to 7.2.4, above.

7.7.2 The "Prior Step" function key allows users to
step back through any search to its origin.



282

7.7.3 Author, title, and subject entries can be
browsed in a combined dictionary index at the

Patron Level. Combined Boolean keyword
access is also supported, but will require
additional CD-ROM storage.

7.7.4 Keyword searching will identify multiple
words wherever they occur within a field.

7.7.5 Truncated searching is supported at the
Research Level. Additional indexing and CD-
ROM storage may be required.

7.8 See items below.

7.8.1 The system reports the number of matches, as
specified.

7.8.2 The browse mode supports near-matching, as
specified.

7.8.3 Browsing is supported as specified. Please

refer to Attachment IX, section A.

7.8.4 (No specification.)

7.8.5 Users can return to the current search
entered and modify its terms without rekeying
the entire search entry. However, prior
searches cannot be retrieved once a new
search has been entered.

7.8.6 Response time will vary with the type of
search and the equipment used, but average
response times for simple searches will
generally average 3 - 5 seconds.

7.9 Fields may be added to the indexing arrangement
described in Attachment X upon request. A-G
reserves the right to negotiate costs and
scheduling for requests that would necessitate
different screen designs, additional function
keys, or different types of searches (i.e., other
than browsing, keyword, Boolean, number).

7.10 Please refer to note above.

8. INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

8.1 See items below.



283

8.1.1 MARC records can be downloaded using the
"CHOOSE" function. Please refer to Attachment
III, section 5.4.

8.1.2 Choice of MARC or ASCII text format is

supported; see Attachment III, section 5.4.

8.1.3 The system can be set up either to inhibit or

enable users to exit to DOS using the
"Escape" key.

8.2 The "CHOOSE" function allows the system to
interface with external card production software
programs such as UltraCard/MARC and our own
IMPACT/Slims small library management system.
However, these programs are not included in the
present proposal.

9. TRAINING AND DOCUMENTATION

9.1 The User Guide included as Attachment III will be

provided with each set of CD-ROM discs initially
provided. Updates to this documentation will be
provided automatically as changes are released.

9.2 Two training sessions will be provided as
required. Please refer to Attachment XI for
additional information on training.

9.3 Enhancements to the software modules proposed will
be provided with each new catalog edition as they
are developed and released.

10. DISTRIBUTION

10.1 A-G takes no exception to this section and will
provide spinoff products upon request at the
prices quoted.

10.2 A-G takes no exception to this section and will
provide the tape copies as specified. 1600 bpi
tapes will be provided if required, although we
suggest that the State consider whether 6250 bpi
tapes or 8mm cartridge tapes might not be provided
as an alternative.



284

11. STATEWIDE DATABASE MAINTENANCE

11.1 A-G takes no exception to this specification.
Please refer to Attachment V, sections A.3 and E
for details of union database maintenance
procedures and options.

11.2 A-G will provide tape spinoff products as
specified, upon request.

11.3 Our proposal includes a Catalog Maintenance module
that will allow authorized users to create
transactions to add, change, or delete their
holdings within the union data base. These
transactions are written to a floppy disk and sent
to A-G for batch application to the data base in
the scheduled update cycle.

Libraries using the catalog as a resource for
retrospective conversion can either create
holdings transactions to add their holdings to the
data base and then arrange to have a complete file
of their holdings extracted at a later date, or
download edited MARC records for immediate use, or
both. Smaller public libraries using both methods
to convert their collections have reported match
rates of up to 90% against IMPACT catalogs
containing comparable numbers of records.

Please refer to Attachment III, section 7, for a
more detailed description of the procedures used
within this module.

12. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

12.1 Please refer to customer list included as
Attachment I.

12.2 Error correction is included as part of the
ongoing software license and support fee. Please
refer to Attachment XIV for a copy of the standard
license terms and a description of our policy on-
correction of data errors.

12.3 A-G has provided CD-ROM catalog services for
libraries since 1987. Please refer to Attachment
I for customer list.



285

12.4 A-G will provide the spinoff tape products
specified upon request.

12.5 A-G accepts this specification as stated.

13. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

13.1 A-G accepts this specification, subject to the
terms for receipt of files and project
specifications described in section 3, above, and
with the provision that A-G will not be held
responsible for this penalty in the event of
delays occasioned by the State, acts of God, or
any other forces beyond our control.

13.2 A-G accepts this specification on the same terms
as the item above, and with the added provision
that this specification may be renegotiated in the
event that the State introduces further
specifications for the format of these tapes
beyond those described in the RFP.

B. Additional Information Requested under RFP
Sections 8.2 - 8.3

8.2.1 HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY

Covered under section A.2.

8.2.2 STATEWIDE DATABASE CREATION

Covered under section A.3 and Attachment
V.

8.2.3 AUTHORITY CONTROL

Covered under section A.4 and Attachment
VI.

8.2.4 CD-ROM DISC CREATION

Covered under section A.S.

8.2.5 SEARCH SOFTWARE

a. Please refer to Attachment XIV.

b. Our development schedule is driven
by customer requests, and as such



286

we have no scheduled dates for
future system developments.
Generically applicable software
enhancements resulting from
customer requests are made
available to all users of the
particular system modules affected
as they are released and developed.
A recent example is a utility
program allowing users to extract
MARC database subsets by holding
code in batch mode directly from a
CD-ROM union catalog. Software
enhancements are distributed as new
catalog editions are produced and
delivered.

c. These (plus location scoping) are
the only qualifiers currently
supported.

d. Please refer to sample CDs
included. Initiating a keyword
search on a term not in the
database will produce a "No matches
found..-" message,

e. Customized scoping for each library
(actually, each PC) is available.
Please refer to Attachment IX,
section C.

f. Please refer to Attachment VIII,
section D.5, for a list of
stopwords.

g. See item above. Normally, even
single-character "words", e.g.,
author initials, are searchable.
For a catalog this size, it may be
necessary to limit indexing of
words that appear in tens of
thousands of entries.

8.2.6 INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. Covered under section A.7.2.3.
b. Covered under section A.8.1.2.
c. The search software is designed to

operate IMPACT catalog CDs, and is



287

not itself compatible with any
other CD-ROM databases.

8.2.7 TRAINING AND DOCUMENTATION

a. Please refer to Attachment III.
b. Software is written in "C".

8.2.8 STATEWIDE DATABASE MAINTENANCE
Covered in section A. 11.3.

8.3 SEARCH SOFTWARE

8.3.1 See items below.
a. Please refer to section 6 of the

User Guide included in Attachment
III. The software profile included
in Attachment IV also provides a
summary of the profiling options
available.

b. The brief, or "four-up" screen
display shows title, author, date,
and call number for up to four
matched records per screen.
Selection of any of these records
produces a further label led
display which is entirely
profitable by the local user.
Please refer to Attachment III,
section 6.

c. Any combination of the indexed
fields listed in Attachment X
(except control numbers) can be
searched. As indicated elsewhere,
inclusion of this index may
increase CD storage requirements.

d. Number of matches is specified upto 9999, and higher in research
level searching.

e. Please refer to Attachment IX,
section A.

f. Covered under section A.7.8.5.



288

g. Covered under section A. 7.9.
Additions should be requested in
writing well before the next
scheduled cutoff date to allow for
programming and testing.

h. None of these fields should have
any effect on response time, or any
significant effect on CD storage,
although it is possible that they
could tip the balance in a case
where all current discs were very
close to being full; i.e., within
10MB per index.

1. Indexing for local call number
browsing is available as an
option, but has not been
proposed due to the amount of
CD storage consumed.

j. Search results can be downloaded
using the "CHOOSE" function in MARC
or ASCII text formats and
transferred to other systems and
programs for external applications.

8.3.2 INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. Covered in Section A.8.1.3.
b. Covered in section A. 8.2.

C. Outline of Project Phases

A-G projects the following sequence of events and
project phases following receipt of our proposal,
assuming we are awarded a contract to produce and
maintain the statewide CD-ROM catalog. An estimate of
the time required for each phase is included,
indicating those areas where completion of the project
phase would be dependent upon actions or decisions to
be taken by the State.

We have tentatively scheduled production resources
within a November -March time frame, based on our
expectation that the contract would be awarded in
October. These dates can be adjusted if the State
requires more time to submit input files or review
project specifications. However, we reserve the right
to renegotiate the schedule in this event, to allow for
other projects that may be in production within a later



289

time frame. It should be understood that our ability
to conform to this, or any set of dates proposed, is
dependent on the finalization of project specifications
with the State, and the receipt of the input data
necessary for the initial catalog.

In order to deliver the initial catalog within 4 months
of award, we propose the following schedule of project
phases.

Proposal Evaluation (October)

Following receipt of our proposal, we will be pleased
to answer any questions the State may have, to discuss
alternative project scenarios, or to provide any
additional information we can that may be helpful.

Contract Award (Assume November 1)

Data Profiling and Receipt (November)

During this phase, A-G will expect to receive the
completed profile forms previously distributed, along
with the actual input files to be used in assembling
the initial catalog data base. While Auto-Graphics
will begin data preparation (the next phase) for
individual files as they are received, it should be
understood that the project cannot advance so long as
we are lacking files and/or profile information. For
this reason, we will need to establish a mutually
agreeable cut-off date, beyond which we would proceed
without any input files not yet received or profiled.
We are willing to hold this project phase open for as
long as necessary, although this would delay the
projected delivery date for the catalog.

The following schedule assumes that all profiles and data
files will have been received on or before November 29,
1991.

Data Preparation (December 2 - 20)

During this phase we will standardize the location/call
number data in the various input files to a common format
that will support both their retention through the
deduplication process and the IMPACT system's location
scoping feature. Error listings will be generated for
records found to be unprocessable based on the profiles
provided; e.g, records with location codes not listed in the
profile forms completed by the library, or lacking the field
or fields from which location or call number information was



290

supposed to have been taken. These printouts will be
returned to the contributing library for review and
resolution prior to the next edition of the catalog.

Demonstration Database Production (December 2 - 20)

As soon as a suitable subset of the data base has been
prepared, A-G will produce a small sample catalog on floppy
disk or CD-ROM for use by the State as an advance
demonstration of the system to be provided. This file will
be delivered to the State by December 20, unless prior dates
have been adjusted by the State.

Data Base Consolidation (December 21 - January 15)

A-G will index the current Brodart database and match in
records from additional sources profiled and delivered in
time for the catalog cutoff) to create a unified catalog
data base consisting of unique master records, with all
applicable local holdings data cumulated to the master
version of each record. The resulting file will be ready
for CD-ROM premastering; i.e., indexing and cross reference
generation.

Authority Control Processing (January 16 - 31)

A-G will process the cumulated masterfile against the
complete and up-to-date LC name and subject authority files,
applying automatic global changes resulting from a match
with LC 4XX headings. A separate process will be used to
generate cross references for each CD-ROM disc.

CD-ROM Catalog Production (February 1 - 15)

During this phase we will divide the file according to the
CD-ROM storage option selected by the State and generate
indexes. After premastering is completed, Auto-Graphics'
project manager will review the premastered file on our CD-
ROM publisher, using the actual software to be provided to
the State. This quality control check verifies that all
access points and displays conform to project
specifications.

We will need a final order for the number of CD-ROM disc
sets to be produced at this time. The State may wish to
order extra sets for backup and new participants now, since
an additional service charge will apply to re-orders. Also,
we will need to have at this time a final order for the
number and configuration of software units to be provided
with the initial catalog. These will be configured and



291

copied while the CD-ROM discs are being mastered and
replicated.

CD-ROM Mastering and Quality Control (February 16 - 28)

After verification, premastered tapes are sent to our
subcontractor for mastering and replication. A final
quality control check is also performed when the
replicate discs are returned.

CD-ROM CataloG Delivery (by March 1)

All copies of the CD-ROM catalog discs, software,
documentation, and project statistics will be delivered
to the State by this date, subject to the terms of our
proposal in section A.3, above.

Training (March)

Training dates will be scheduled according to a
schedule negotiated with the State. We have found that
two days of training is generally sufficient to provide
library systems of a similar size with a base of
trained individuals who can serve as an ongoing
resource for other participants and staff members.

Delivery of Database Copies (By March 31, or within 30
days of catalog delivery)

A-G will deliver the two sets of database tapes

required by this date. Ongoing Database Updates

Once the original catalog has been delivered and
accepted, Auto-Graphics will provide services to
maintain the union data base, software, and,
optionally, equipment purchased from us. The data base
can be maintained and expanded by: 1) applying MARC
transaction tapes provided by members, consisting of
records added, changed, or deleted since the original
data cutoff; 2) merging in complete MARC data bases for
new participants; or 3) applying holdings transactions
created using the optional Catalog Maintenance module
to add, delete, or change holdings on existing data
base records. Transactions provided by any of these
means will be applied to the existing data base as part
of an update cycle leading up to the publication of the
annual catalog or supplement. Subsequent catalogs and



292

supplements will follow a production cycle similar to
that outlined above.

D. Other Information

A summary of the schedule outlined above (RFP
Exhibit D) follows this section. Please refer to
Attachment XV for a general A-G organization
chart.



This page has been inserted during digitization.

Either the original page was missing or the

original pagination was incorrect.



LEIBIT A
PRICING PAGE CONTINUED

CD-ROM Product in excess of 400 copies:

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

$ 2. per copy
$ .2.5902 per copy
$ L25.0 per copy
$.. 12L.0 per copy

C. Customized Changes: The of feror shall provide a price per hour for providing
customized changes in the search software pursuant to the state agency's request.
The offeror shall provide a firm, fixed price for the original contract period and a
maximum price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

$ 75.00 per hour
$ MOOO per hour
$ 75.00 per hour
$ 71.00 per hour

D. Spinoff Product: The offeror shall provide a price per record for the creation of a
spinoff product on a CD-ROM disc and a 9 Track Tape. The offeror shall provide a
price CD-ROM Disc and per 9 Track Tape. The of feror shall provide a firm, fixed
price of the original contract period and a maximum price for each extension period.

CD-ROM Disc
a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

9 Track Tape

$ 0.0175 per record
$ 0.0175 per record
$ 0.0175 per record
$ 0.0175 per record
(minimum $500.00/catalog)

$ 25.00 per
$ 25.00 per
$ 25.00 per
$ 25.00 per

a. Original Contract Period: $ 0.0025 per record $ 25.00 per 4ietaj
b. First Extension Period: $ 0.0025 per record $ 25.00 per 4ieta
c. Second Extension Period: $ 0.0025 per record $ 25.00 per dsetaj
d. Third Extension Period: $ 0.0025 per record $ 25.00 per dtsetaj

(minimum $500.00/tape copy)
E. Shelflist: If proposed, the offeror must provide a price per record for the creation

of a machine readable catalog record from printed shelflist in USMARC format. The
offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for the original contract period and a
maximum price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

$ 0.45 per record
$ 0.475 per record
$ 0.50 per record

0 0._ per record

F. The offeror must provide a total price per library for any additional hardware needed
to operate the search software. The total price shall include the cost of the
equipment and installation. The offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for the
original contract period and a maximum price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract ?eriod:
b. First Extension Pericd:
c. Secc-d Externsin Period:
d. Third Extension Fericd:

* 1.095.00 per record
$ 1095.00 per record
$ 1,095.00 per record
$ 1,095.00 per record

The firm, fixed prices stated above are provided in accordance with the terms and
conditions of R8? B20114S.

RFP NO. 1201148
Pago 29 of 33

[2943

disc
disc
disc
disc

pe
P*
po
pe



[295]

RFP NO. B201148
Page 30 of 33

EXWI1IT S

PRICE ANALYSIS

Annual Edition of the Statewide Database

1. Creation of the Statewide Database * No-chargei

2. Authority Control $ 3,750.00

3. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc $ 52,500.00

4. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product $ 30,000.00

5. Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies $ 3,500.00

6. 400 Copies of the Software Documentation/User Manual $ No charge

7. List Other:

System software license $ 24,000.00

Performance bond $ No charge

Training (as required in RFP) $ No charge

TOTAL (See price quoted for 00001 on the Pricing Page) $ 112,750.00

Statewide Database Supplement

1. Creation of the Statewide Database $ 3,750.00

2. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc $ 5,000.00

3. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product $ 6,000.00

4. Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies $ 250.00

7. List Other:

TOIAL (See price ;uoted for CC03 cn the ?ricinj Page) $ 15,000.00

February 7, 1992

AUThORIZED SICNA. tRE DATE



296

Proposal from Library Corporation

4. PROPOSED METHOD OF PERFORMANCE

The Library Corporation is submitting the following
proposal in response to your Request for Proposal for a
Missouri State Library CD-ROM Statewide Catalog.
Throughout the years The Library Corporation (TLC) has
developed the most user friendly, yet sophisticated,
library automation tools available. Our automated
modules include BiblioFile Cataloging, BiblioFile
Circulation, BiblioFile Public Access Catalog, and
BiblioFile Acquisitions. Other services include
database processing, CD-ROM mastering, special software
development, retrospective conversion, and more. Future
developments include Serials Control and Interlibrary
Loan.

All software programs for TLC are written in the 11C11
programming language. All software programs operate in
the MS-DOS operating environment on IBM compatible
personal computers. The network software is Novell and
also operates in the MS-DOS operating environment.
BiblioFile utilizes the full MARC record structure
format and will accept many other vendors' MARC
records, providing the records are in MARC II
communications format.

BiblioFile Public Access Catalogs (PAC), the proposed
software for the Missouri State Library statewide
catalog, gives your patrons, and staff, access to your
collection through hundreds of access points. Ease of
use is the key to any public access catalog and there
is no catalog that is more friendly to use than TLC
PAC.

In this section of our Proposal, The Library
Corporation is addressing the conditions listed
in ",4 on pages 23-26, section 8. PROPOSED METHOD OF
PERFORMANCE, of the RFP.

1. Proposals will be evaluated based on the offeror's
distinctive plan for performing the requirements
of the RFP. Since the evaluators have already read
the Scope of Work as described in the RFP, it is
not necessary for the offeror to repeat the exact
RFP Language, or to present a paraphrased
version, as an original idea for a technical
approach.



297

The Library Corporation has read and understands
the Scope of Work as described in the RFP. Our
approach is presented in the following sections.

2. The offeror MUST submit a written narrative which
demonstrates the method or manner in which the
offeror proposes to satisfy the requirements of
the Scope of Work. The language of the narrative
should be straightforward and limited to facts,
solutions to problems, and plans of proposed
action.

The Library Corporation believes strongly that the
only way to assure a successful CD ROM union
catalog of the type envisioned for State Library
requires a commitment from both parties to maximum
advance planning during the pre-mastering stages
and continued dialogue during subsequent use of
the system.

Meeting the schedule dictated by the completion dates will
require a mutual adherence to the implementation plan
developed prior to the signing of the contract. The State
Library's primary responsibility is to get the data to The
Library Corporation in an expeditious manner. The second
responsibility of the State Library is to answer any
questions and give approval of tests and samples within a
reasonable time frame.

TIC's responsibilities are to provide the State Library with
a concise, easily understood picture of how the
bibliographic processing will be carried out and the time
frame in which the numerous elements of the entire job will
be completed. For a sample Project Planning and
Implementation schedule please see the following section.
TIC will provide, as part of the project and to provide
tools to clarify technical discussions, a sample catalog
will be provided to the State Library.

Pre-mastering, mastering and production of the CD-ROM union
catalog will require approximately three weeks after
approval of the sample.

Implementation

Receipt of the data is the critical factor upon which all
successful implementation schedules are determined. In
addition, the consistency of the data, and the timeliness of



298

review and revision will also impact the schedule. With
these factors in mind we present the following target
schedule.

I. Within thirty days of receipt of all data from Missouri
State Library, TIC will present to the State Library
the full analysis of data which will include without
limitation:

A. Provide for each input source, i.e. institution:

1. List of holding locations and collections
occurring on input tape.

2. Count of number of occurrences of each
holding location and collection.

3. Count of number of records without a useable
holding location or collection.

B. Provide for each library employing input stamps:

1. List of input stamps extracted for each
holding location.

2. Count of number of occurrences of each input
stamp extracted for each holding location.

II. Within thirty days of State of Missouri's clarification
and return of the analysis, TLC will merge all the data
into a single file for the preparation of the CD and
deliver to the State Library a sample of the merged
file sufficient to permit State of Missouri to verify
that merging and call number generation has been
performed satisfactorily and an analysis of the merged
file, which will include without limitation:

A. Sample of call numbers generated, to include:
1 . For each holding collection and location, a

sample of at least 25 call numbers generated,
preferably distributed through the input
file.

2. For each library using automatic stamps, a
sample of at least 25 call numbers generated
for each automatic stamp, preferably
distributed through the input file.

3. For each library using input stamps, a sample
of at least 25 call numbers generated for



299

each input stamp, preferably distributed
through the input file.

4. For each library using automatic oversize
stamps, a sample of at least 25 call numbers
generated for each automatic oversize
location for each holding location and
collection, preferably distributed through
the input file.

B. Provide for each input source a total of number of
records without call number data.

C. Provide for each library employing automatic
stamps:

1. List of automatic stamps generated.

2. Count of number of occurrences of each
automatic stamp generated.

D. Provide for each library generating automatic
oversize designations:

1. List of oversize designations.

2. Count of number of occurrences of each
oversize category for each holding location
and collection.

III. Within sixty days of State of Missouri's acceptance of
the merged file, TLC will deliver to the State Library
the completed CD-ROM database which shall comply fully
with the specifications set forth in the State of
Missouri RFP and the TLC Response.

Test Phase

As a standard, integral component of TLC's CD union catalog
production procedures, the library receives and approves a
sample catalog prior to mastering. The sample will be
produced based on the specifications determined during the
advanced planning discussions between State of Missouri and
TLC. Everything possible is done in the planning and
specifications setting stage to minimize the chance that the
sample catalog will contain any surprises. The Library
Corporation works closely with your staff to develop
reasonable turnaround times to review and approve the
sample.



In addition, the review of samples is included in the sampleimplementation schedule presented above.

Bibliographic data processing

A detailed review of the steps taken in bibliographic dataprocessing are included in the Project planning andImplementation sections above.

The first step in the bibliographic data processing is to"lay down" the data on the TLC implementation system. Atthis stage, preliminary analysis of the various files ismade. Questions about the database, such as record count,missing fields, unreadable records, etc., are brought to theattention of State of Missouri and resolved.

During this period reports are generated on the databasesoverall record count, record structure, holdings symbols,call number structure, and any data variations. Results ofthe analysis are sent to the library. Based on library'sresponse to these review materials, TLC would then beginprogrammer customization of the database targeted towardproduction of a I 0,000 record sample Union Catalog. Thesample database with necessary evaluation hardware andsoftware would be forwarded to the library staff for review.Additional samples may be forwarded to the library based onany corrections cited as necessary by the library staff.

Upon final approval of the PAC sample, TLC then begins theproduction run of the library's full database and masteringof the CD-ROM Union Catalog.

Authority Control

The Library Corporation understands the necessity forauthority control is purely a local decision. Authoritycontrol processingris includedhas part of the pre-masteringdata processing work done by The Library Corporation. TheLibrary Corporation will run your records against the latestLibrary of Congress Name and Subject Authority files. "See"and "see also" references are created and all records aredeblinded. Standard services include:

Provide cross-references: The Library Corporation providesvalid cross references ("SEE" and "SEE ALSO") to the correctform of a name or subject. Deblind entries: Thedatabase is"de-blinded" eliminating cross references from subject ornames which are not contained in a bibliographic record.

300



301

Additional authority control services are also based on theuse of the Library of Congress Name and Subject authorityfiles. The Library Corporation will run your database
against the Library of Congress Name and Subject authorityfiles and provide the following:

Flip headings: the authority data is flipped from theauthority record to the bibliographic record if headings donot match.

Exception List: preparation of a "no match" list can be
provided.

For additional information on the Authority Control Process,please refer to Appendix 4.

2.1 HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY

a. The offeror MUST list the hardware, including
personal computers, microcomputers, hard disks,
printers, etc., compatible with the proposed
search software.

The standard hardware configuration recommended
for BiblioFile PAC is: an IBM PC 286 compatible
computer with an internal Hitachi CD-ROM drive, 40mb hard disk drive, graphics adaptor, floppy
drive, generic keyboard, and monochrome monitor.

Any standard CD-ROM drive that is compatible withand accepts Microsoft Extensions will operate
BiblioFile PAC; however, sound will be supported
only on Hitachi drives. TLC strongly recommends
and endorses the Hitachi CD-ROM drive. Thesedrives are available from The Library Corporation.
The Library Corporation recommends monochrome
monitors; however, a color version of the softwareis under development. You may use the unioncatalog with the color monitor after turning off
the graphics capability.

From past experience we know of several compatibleprinters such as the Star Thermal Silent Printer,and the IBM Thermal printer. In addition, anystandard dot matrix serial or parallel printer,such as the Okidata, Epson, and IBM Proprinter arecompatible with the Intelligent Catalog.

Any Epson printer will work with the software, aswill the Okidata printers in the Epson emulationmode. In fact, it has been our experience that



302

printers that accept an 80 character carriage
width and allow an ASCII dump are compatible with
the software. We have also been successful with
other printers that allow an Epson emulation.

Laser printers in general are not recommended with
the Intelligent Catalog.

b. The offeror MUST list the specific equipment
needed for the proposed search software. In
addition, the offeror MUST state the cost and cost
of the maintenance of such equipment.

BiblioFile PAC is available through The Library
Corporation as software or a turnkey system.

The public access catalog is a complete turnkey
system with your library's database on CD-ROM. The
Intelligent Catalog includes an IBM PC compatible
computer (a PC AT 286 is standard, 386 is
optional) with a built-in CD-ROM drive, 40 mb hard
drive, graphics adaptor, and floppy drive. It also
includes a monochrome monitor, color-coded
keyboard and audio capabilities supported by a
telephone handset and headphones. $ 2,470

Full PAC support includes full hardware
replacement, software support, updates of your
library's catalog on CD-ROM, and unlimited access
to TLC's toll-free support line $595/year

Optional:

PC AT 386 computer $300

Handcrafted wooden cabinet available in two
heights and in a variety of finishes to suit your
library's needs and decor. $500

Color-coded keyboard $150
Hewlett Packard Thinkjet, includes tractor feed,
cable, and first year support $550

Annual support after first year $165



303

Hitachi CD-ROM drive - includes interface card,
and cable $680

Annual hardware support $120

2.2 STATE\WIDE DATABASE CREATION: Other than the Brodart
MARC tapes, OCLC, UTLAS, BiblioFile, LaserQuest, and
MULSP, the offeror SHALL identify any additional
cataloging source(s) for the source data acceptable by
the offeror for entry into the statewide database. The
offeror SHALL provide such information on Exhibit A.
For each type of cataloging source, the offeror SHALL
indicate the amount of lead time needed to enter such
into the statewide database in order to complete the
statewide database within the time frame specified
herein.

The Library Corporation has extensive experience
reading and processing machine readable records in MARC
II communications format, as well as several other
formats. TLC has worked with data from many different
vendors, including: tapes from AutoGraphics, Brodart,
CLSI, DRA, EBCDIC, Geac, LSSI, Marcive, OCLC, RLIN,
NOTIS and Utlas, as well as floppy diskettes from
BiblioFile, LaserQuest and SuperCat, and even Circ Plus
circulation databases. In addition, we frequently
process records that are in IPF (internal processing
format) standard, in Microlif, in NOTIS MARC, RLIN, CAN
MARC, and other variations of the USMARC. TLC can
convert the IPF of records from CLSI and Follett. We
are also capable of tailing raw non-MARC and pseudo
MARC records from several vendors and converting them
into enriched MARC records.

The Library Corporation requires no additional lead
time to enter these sources into the statewide
database.

2.3 AUTHORITY CONTROL: The offeror MUST explain how new or
changed subject headings and cross references will be
processed.

The Library Corporation understands the necessity for
authority control is purely a local decision.

Authority control processing is included as part of the pre-
mastering data processing work done by The Library
Corporation. The Library Corporation will run your records
against the latest Library of Congress Name and Subject
Authority files. "See" and "see also" references are



304

created and all records are deblinded. Standard services
include:

Provide cross-references: The Library Corporation
provides valid cross references ("SEE" and "SEE ALSO")
to the correct form of a name or subject.

Deblind entries: The database is "de-blinded"
eliminating cross references from subject or names
which are not contained in a bibliographic record.

Additional authority control services are also based on the
use of the Library of Congress Name and Subject authority
files. The Library Corporation will run your database
against the Library of Congress Name and Subject authority
files and provide the following:

Flip headings: the authority data is flipped from the
authority record to the bibliographic record if
headings do not match.

Exception Listing: preparation of a "no match" list can
be provided.

For additional information on the Authority Control Process,
please refer to Appendix 4.

2.4 CD-ROM DISC CREATION

a. The offeror MUST indicate whether the CD-ROM disc
conforms to High Sierra Group (150 9660) standards

The Library Corporation CD-ROM union catalog projects in
general and the Union Catalog produced for Missouri State
Library will adhere to the High Sierra Group (ISSO 9600)
standards.

b. The offeror MUST determine whether multiple CD-ROM
discs are needed for the statewide database. If
the statewide database would require two or more
CD-ROM discs, the offeror SHALL explain the reason
for such and indicate how the proposed search
software will handle multiple CD-ROM discs in
searching.

Multiple CD-ROM discs will be needed for the statewide
database. The Library Corporation currently supports largedatabases such as the 1.6 million record database at
Rochester Regional Library Council and a 1.3 million recordexperimental project done with the New York Public Library.



305

This database currently resides on three CD-ROM discs. The
number of discs required for the Missouri project can only
be determined upon examination of the database. For
additional information, please see the response to "C.t'
below.

Each CD-ROM disc will have its own index to the items held
on each individual CD. In addition, TLC will provide a
separate CD-ROM disc with an index of the holdings of all
the CD-ROM discs so that a user can enter a title or author
to determine on which CDROM disc the full record is held.

Another option would be to produce multiple disc systems
which would require more than one CD-ROM drive but would not
require the separate author title search.

c. The offer MUST indicate the approXimate number of
records which will fit on one CD-ROM disc.

Typically, each CD-ROM disc produced by The Library
Corporation includes up to 600,000 records, depending on the
size of each record and the number of holdings. An
examination of the Missouri database by TLC Technical
Services would be necessary to determine the number of discs
required for the project.

2.5 SEARCH SOFTWARE

a. The offeror MUST provide a copy of the standard
maintenance agreement covering the performance of
the proposed search software.

The Library Corporation does not require a signed contract
to do business with a library, however, TLC is happy to
review a proposed contract by your library. We feel this
policy is in your best interest and allows you to "make the
rules" by which we serve your library.

We are happy to work with you to create a mutually agreeable
contract if you so desire.

The same is true for ongoing maintenance of hardware and
software. The prices found in the cost section include the
first year maintenance. After the first year you have the
choice of renewing total system support on an annual basis.
Simply stated, The Library Corporation provides absolutely
all support of the system software, hardware, updates,
enhancements, and unlimited access to our toll-free hotline
for one price.



306

b. The offeror MUST provide written details regarding
anticipated upgrades to the proposed search
software including features, projected delivery
date, and procedures for updating the current
system.

Information is becoming the world's most valuable commodity.
The Library Corporation is committed to providing librarians
and their patrons with the tools and support to gain fast,
easy access to the world's store of knowledge. To achieve
this goal, TLC unleashes creative minds to exploit
technology to the limit and to provide unparalleled service
to librarians.

Library automation does not stand still. Many new advances
are happening every day and the future of library automation
is bright. Every technological advance is being developed
for only one reason to help answer the needs of your
library. In this advancement there will be companies that
survive, companies that thrive, and companies that die. The
Library Corporation will be one of the companies that will
thrive. We have made sure of this by dedicating one third of
our staff to research and development. This group is made up
of some of the world's most intelligent programmers. It is
this same staff that have repeatedly introduced new
innovations that have become the standards by which other
systems are measured.

All BiblioFile systems are provided with the appropriate
system documentation. This documentation is thorough and
provides step-by-step instructions in guiding librarians
through the software. Documentation and release notes are
provided to all users when changes or modifications to the
software are made.

c. Other than publication date, format of material by
type, and language, the offeror SHALL specify any
other qualifiers which the user can use to limit
searches.

The Limit Search function available in the Intelligent
Catalog helps patrons narrow searches in Find Anything or
View Catalog. Limit searches can be performed by catalog
entry type and branch library locations, as well as
publication date, material type (media type), and language.
Catalog entry type searches contain searches such as authors
only or subjects only, or a patron can specify any
combination of entry types.

As an alternative View Catalog is designed for patrons who
know specifically what they are locking for. From the first



307

screen of View Catalog a patron can narrow a search to a

particular index or a combination of indexes. This mode 
of

searching assumes the user has had some experience with

database searching.

Sophisticated patrons can choose not to follow the FIND

ANYTHING search route, and go directly to specific search

argument: author, title, subject, or any combination of the

three and limit searches by language, media type, year range
and library.

You can qualify a search by publication year or range of

years. The following options are available:

ALL all years
1978 Only 1978
1973-1978 1973 through 1978

1975- 1975 and after
-1982 1882 and before

With branch library locations, particular library branches

or groups of libraries in your system can be limited. Each

individual library can predetermine which branch or

libraries patrons can search on a particular catalog

station. When limitations are set, the occurrence list in a

search will show which items can be found in the selected J
branches.

The library may use the powerful scoping feature to limit by

individual library, by type of library, by library system,

and by geographic region. If the librarian allows it in the

configuration, patrons can use their own Limit Search

definitions along with branch scoping. For example, if a

patron always goes to Branch "A," the patron can Limit

Search to Branch "A" and it will always be included in

searches, no matter which branch scoping level the patron
may choose.

d. The offeror MUST provide a sample of error

messages used in the system.

Error messages appear in BiblioFile PAC when an

inappropriate key is pressed. For example, while in the
Find Anything mode, the FIO key is pressed. The PAC

will prompt you with "You do not have any items saved

to print. Please press ESC to continue". This error

message occurs when you do not have any items saved for
printing.



308

Context-sensitive and self explanatory help messages
are always available in BiblioFile PAC.

BiblioFile PAC has 107 help screens to date. As new
functions are added the appropriate help messages are
included. Upon request we will provide a printout of
these help screens. BiblioFile PAC help screens are
context sensitive and can be locally edited by the
library staff. Help screens are prompted by pressing
the help key or are automatically displayed after a
pre-set number of seconds of keyboard inactivity. This
"time out" mechanism is locally configurable. Examples
of help screens appear throughout the BiblioFile PAC
handbook.

Each BiblioFile PAC screen also contains a second level
of help at the bottom of each screen. This level of
help is displayed in reverse highlighted video and is
also context sensitive.

e. The offeror MUST provide information on the
scoping capabilities of the system, and advise
whether customized scoping for each library is
available,

Each library may use the powerful scoping feature, defining
up to 99 different levels, to limit by individual library,
by type of library, by library system, and by geographic
region. If the librarian allows it in the configuration,
patrons can use their own Limit Search definitions along
with branch scoping. For example, if a patron always goes to
Branch "A," the patron can Limit Search to Branch "A" and it
will always be included in searches, no matter which branch
scoping level the patron may choose. To begin branch
scoping, the patron simply presses a function key.

f. The offeror MUST provide a list of stopwords,

The following stopwords are currently used during the
BiblioFile PAC indexing process and are not searchable by
the user: AND, BUT, FOR, FROM, TO, THE, WITH. In addition to
this list, all one and two-letter words are stopwords except
the following: CD, DR, ED, FE, GO, I, ID, II, IV, IX, ME,
OF, ST, TV, U2, US, V, VD, VI, X, XI, XX. TLC's
implementation staff will work with the Missouri State
Library project.administrator on adding any additional
stopwords to this list as required.



309

g. The offeror MUST indicate any terms which are not
indexed and searchable; for example, two letter
words at the beginning of a title.

Please see 5 for a list of standard MARC fields searchable
with the PAC software. The Library Corporation is happy to
discuss with the State Library any other MARC fields that it
wishes to be indexed.

2.6 INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. The offeror MUST indicate whether the user can
access the printer in order to print screens,
lists, and other information from the CD-ROM disc,
screen, hard disk, and floppy disk.

BiblioFile PAC software allows each library to set up print
limitations. In the configuration option of each IC, the
librarian selects the screens which will allow users to
print to floppy disk. The Intelligent Catalog allows users
to print the following screens:

- Maps
- Catalog heading screen: hit lists in

Find Anything, View Catalog, and non-
fiction Get Advice.

- Multiple title screen
- Shelflist screen; single item-level

display
- Bulletin Board
- User notes
- User log
- MARC records to diskette

b. In addition to the MARC format, the offer MUST
specify what other formats, if any, are available
to copy records from the CD-ROM disc onto hard or
floppy disks.

All fields of a MARC record can be displayed with BiblioFile
PAC ways to display and print the resulting list are
available, full MARC record, full labelled display, full
card display, brief labelled, and brief card. At any time
during searches, the librarian or patron can change the
display format or print format of catalog entries. The
librarian selects the default display and print formats in
the configuration.



C. The offeror MUST list and provide information onthe other CD-ROM products, if any, with which thesearch software is compatible y
An exciting option, soon to be available, is a mergedperiodical index/monograph CD. This merged database may besearched with the same powerful Intelligent Catalog searchtechniques and will result in "hit"lists of both monographsand periodical articles.

The cost of this merged database will depend on theinformation supplied by the index vendor, such as number ofyears required and type of index. With the addition of theperiodical resources, the database will expand accordingly
We currently have prototype arrangements with varioussuppliers and will be happy to work with the library in thisarea. The library will be responsible for negotiating aseparate arrangement with the index vendor for a tape
subscription, with the tapes being sent to The LibraryCorporation for mastering onto the CD.

2.7 TRAINING AND DOCUMENTATION

a. The offeror MUST submit one Copy of the searchsoftware/documentation 
user manual.

All BiblioFile systems are provided with the appropriatesystem documentation. This documentation is thorough and
provides step-bystep instructions in guiding librariansthrough the software. Documentation and release notes are
provided to all users when changes or modifications to thesoftware are made. A PAC handbook is included as part ofthis Proposal.

b. The of feror MUST specify the language in which thesearch software is written.

All software programs for The Library Corporation arewritten in the "C" programming language.

2.8 STATEWIDE DATABASE MAINTENANCE: The offeror SHALL -describe the processing sequence for adding, deleting,and replacing records in the statewideddatabase.
The Library Corporation would first work with the individual
library to determine its cataloging practices. We would thentake each individual archival tape and treat it according tothe library's operational specificationseOncetthis 

step is

310



311

completed, we will match it against the Missouri state
database by the points specified by the client. For example,
25 characters of 245a, 25 characters of 245b, sections of
tag 260c, tag 260b; we can match against bibliographic level
or bibliographic type to make sure they haven't used a
monographic record for AV, etc. We will operationally merge
records on the characters that are present in the data. We
can utilize any information that is present for matching
purposes.

The IC Edit utility enables you to download and edit MARC
records you find on your Intelligent Catalog CD-ROM
database. This utility will enable you to transmit changes,
such as holdings code information, to The Library
Corporation for inclusion in your next CD-ROM database. It
would be installed on your Public Access Catalog
workstation.

BiblioFile Cataloging is the recommended method of keeping
your database up to date.

The Library Corporation has extensive experience reading and
processing machine readable records in MARC II
communications format, as well as in several other formats.
TLC has worked with data from many different vendors.

Updates may be provided in magnetic form from a variety of
sources such as those listed in Section 4.2.2 in our
Proposal.

3. In addition, the offeror should provide the following
information:

3.1 SEARCH SOFTWARE

a. The offeror should indicate which parts of the
system are flexible for individual library
control.

You can customize BiblioFile Public Access Catalogs to meet
the needs of your patrons through configuration options.
Configuration options can be reached only by a special key
combination and password. It is reconfigured for the
password to be changed often to prevent tampering and to
protect your stations. Following are some features and
functions that are configurable:

Time intervals for automatic display of help and
catalog restart

Limit searches to particular branch libraries



312

Change tags and labels in screen displays

Turn compact disc sound ON or OFF

Change librarian password

Set the library name which appears on 
printed lists of

items

Change format of the display of multi-branch, 
multi-

call number locations

Define printing options available on each 
station

Set Circulation link parameters

The configuration also offers utility functions to help 
you

maintain and use your catalogs. You can maintain 
the library

event calendar, transfer configuration changes, edit 
help

screens, format floppy diskettes, set branch scoping 
levels,

and more.

b. The offeror should specify the information

provided on the brief screen display; for 
example,

author, title, publisher, date, edition, and

system ID number.

Any field within the MARC record can be 
displayed at any

point within a display format. This is 
a configurable option

controlled locally by the library staff. It 
is our

experience that the local call number is 
usually displayed

at the bottom of a record with a blank line 
between it and

the other data. This allows the call number 
and branch

location to stand out within a record.

At any time during searches, the librarian or 
patron can

change the display format or print format 
of catalog

entries. The librarian selects the default display and 
print

formats in the configuration. Options for display 
formats

are: full labelled format, a brief labelled format, 
a brief

card format, a card image format, and a MARC record 
format.

The Change Display feature allows the patron to 
customize

the record display during a search by pressing a single 
key.

The two brief screen formats supported by the BiblioFile 
PAC

software are brief card format and brief labelled 
format. A

description of each follows:

Example of brief labelled format:

Title: Gone with the wind by Margaret Mitchell.



313

Publisher: Garden City, N.Y.: International 
Collectors

Library, c 1936. Collation: 689 p. 22 cm. Location:

SOUTH REGIONAL: 813.5 M6826

Example of brief card display:

Gone with the wind by

Margaret Mitchell. Garden City, N.Y. 
: International

Collectors Library, c1936.

SOUTH REGIONAL: 813.5
M6826

c. The offeror should list the combination searches

the search software can support.

The View Catalog search mode of BiblioFile PAC supports 
for

the following field combinations: Search all entries,

Subjects only, Subjects and Titles, Subjects and Authors,

Titles only, Titles & Authors, and Authors only.

d. The offeror should specify whether the number of

matches is specified in the event of multiple
records.

BiblioFile PAC provides the number of matches in the event

of multiple records.

e. If proposed, the of feror should describe the

browsing capabilities.

Patrons can "browse the shelves" before going to the stacks.

Press the right and left arrow keys to see catalog entries

for books shelved next to the one selected. The catalog

displays items with the next sequential call number, 
by

Dewey or LC classification number, depending on the 
scheme

used in your library. These searches are displayed and can

be printed in any of the following formats: brief labelled,

full labelled, brief card, card image, or MARC record.

f. The offeror should specify whether the user has

the capability to modify a previous search.

Any time during a search, the patron can press the "UNDO"

key to return to a previous search. The user may then 
modify

a search.



314

The catalog offers users more help in finding additional

subjects and authors in a nonfiction search through the Get

Advice function. With the Get Advice feature, patrons can

ask for alternative search paths. This help is available to

the user who has saved one or more items, as the suggestions

are based on previous searching activity.

g. The offeror should provide information on the

process for adding a searchable field to a future
database project.

All fields of a MARC record can be searched with BiblioFile

PAC, as listed in Appendix 5. The Library Corporation would

be happy to discuss with the library any other MARC fields
to be indexed.

h. The offeror should provide information on the
amount of CD-ROM disc space required to store and

index the following optional searchable fields and

the impact on search time and response time of the
added fields. Publisher (260 $b) Contents note
(505 $a) GPO item number (074 $a)

The contents note field (505 $a) and GPO item number (074

$a) are currently supported by BiblioFile PAC. The publisher
(260 $b) field is not currently supported.

*An analysis of the database by TLC Technical Services would

be necessary to determine the impact on search time of the
added fields. Factors in this analysis include the number of
fields to be indexed and the holdings information.

i. The offeror should specify what additional
searching features are available.

Again, all fields of MARC record can be searched with

BiblioFile PAC. Please refer to Appendix 5 for a list of
fields indexed in BiblioFile PAC.

BibCat combines the best features of the Intelligent
Catalog's Find Anything and View Catalog searching modes
into one smooth searching function. BibCat also offers a

subject approach, like Browse Topics. On-screen prompts help

the inexperienced user get started, and to serve as a
reminder to more experienced patrons. Many users prefer the

combined dictionary and all-word searching. BibCat goes one
step beyond Find Anything. If nothing is found in a search,
the catalog presents a list of entries nearest your search
argument.



315

Two main search modes, Find Anything and View Catalog, are
markedly different in their sophistication. The search mode

that sets TLC apart is the Intelligent Catalog's Find

Anything. Find Anything is a keyword search mode which

assumes the patron has never used a computerized catalog.
Prior to the beginning of a search the screen asks "What

would you like to find in the catalog?" As soon as the

patron begins to type, a dictionary of words appears on the

right hand side of the screen. This dictionary is designed
to help patrons with spelling. It begins a search across all

indexes (unless the patron has specified a particular index)
and alerts the patron as to the number of "hits" it finds.

The patron is then instructed to press <enter> to initiate
the search.

As an alternative View Catalog is designed for patrons who
know specifically what they are looking for. From the first
screen of View Catalog a patron can narrow a search to a
particular index or a combination of indexes. This mode of
searching assumes the user has had some experience with
database searching.

Sophisticated patrons can choose not to follow the Find
Anything search route, and go directly to specific search
argument: author, title, subject, or any combination of the
three and limit searches by language, media type, year range
and library.

Searches are easy to retrace. The catalog keeps track of
search paths and with a single keystroke (the UNDO
function), permits the patron to return to the previous
screen.

Patrons can save individual items to review or print later
as well as save items from a multiple title list. Each time
a patron saves an item, the screen displays the total number
of items saved. Up to 200 items can be saved for later
printing.

Patrons can Browse Topics and go directly to subject areas
of the catalog, without first typing a word search. The
initial screen presents a list of general subjects, based on
the broad breakdowns in the LC or Dewey classification.
Patrons continue to select further subdivisions until the
shelf level is reached. Then the patron can browse other
books right or left on the shelf, just as in a word or
phrase search.

BiblioFile PAC software fully supports Boolean searching. In
the Find Anything search mode "and", "or" and "not"
arguments are supported. In fact, when you enter more than



316

one word, and the words do not appear as a phrase, the PAC
software performs an automatic "and" search.

The View Catalog search mode allows for the following field
combinations: Search all entries, Subjects only, Subjects
and Titles, Subjects and Authors, Titles only, Titles &
Authors, and Authors only.

j. The offeror should indicate what can be done with
search results once they are obtained; for
example, download, print in bibliographies, etc.

Patrons can print the catalog entry for any item by pressing
the Print Items key. A menu offers these choices: Print only
the current item, Arrange all of the saved items before
printing, Print the items in the order in which they were
saved. Patrons can produce a sorted bibliography of catalog
selections by use of a function key. The following options
are available: By library shelf number, By date of
publication, Alphabetically by Author/Title, Alphabetically
by Title.

Patrons can also produce a sorted bibliography of catalog
selections. Several sorting options are available. The
format of the printed items is controlled by the Change
Display option. It can vary from an abbreviated entry to a
full MARC record, depending on what the patron needs. User
print privileges are configurable. The librarian can turn
off any or all of the printing capabilities on any station.

To help patrons keep track of a search's progress or review
words already searched, the Intelligent Catalog
automatically saves a log of search paths. A patron can
review the log anytime by pressing a function key. A
patron's log can accumulate up to 200 lines of information.
The patron may print the log by pressing a function key.

Each time a patron views a record in the catalog, the shelf
status of the item is automatically displayed if the library
has BiblioFile Circulation linked with their PAC. The
library Corporation will also be happy to discuss linking
with other vendor's circulation systems to provide shelf
status.

3.2 INTERFACE TO OTHER FUNCTIONS

a. The offeror should explain how the process of
exiting the search software and returning to DOS
will be done.



317

The process of exiting BiblioFile 
PAC and returning to DOS

is accomplished through configuration 
options. These

configuration options are reached by a special key

combination and password, to prevent tampering 
with the

catalog. The password can be changed by 
the librarian as

often as desired to protect the stations. Once entering 
the

correct password, the Master Menu is displayed. 
From this

point, one can exit to DOS by 
selecting the option from the

Menu.

b. If the system will allow the user to print catalog

card from the CD-ROM disc, the offeror should

explain how this printing is accomplished.

The Library Corporation presents two methods of using data

on the CD for local card production. Each 
approach requires

the use of BiblioFile Cataloging which provides 
the

flexibility of printing cards according to the library's

specifications.

First, MARC records from the BiblioFile PAC 
station are

saved to a floppy diskette and then imported 
into BiblioFile

Cataloging for editing and printing.

With the second approach, The Library Corporation 
provides

each library with a local disc, as well as the 
union CD.

This local disc is a duplicate of the union database 
and has

been reindexed for use with BiblioFile Cataloging 
software.

Immediate editing for card printing capabilities 
is made

available via this local disc.

Please refer to the attached brochure for a description 
and

pricing of BiblioFile Cataloging. Also enclosed 
(with the

brochure) is a blue flier describing a special subscription

offer for BiblioFile Cataloging.



1 3181

aif NO. 3201>68
Page Z8 of 33 The Library Corporation

EBIhIT A
PRICING PAGE

The offeror shall provide the following information for services provided in accordance
with the terms and conditions specified herein. All costs associated with providing the
required shall be included in the following prices.

A. Annual Edition of the Statewide Database: The offeror shall provide a total price
for the annual edition of the statewide database. The total price shall include
all costs for the creation of the statewide database based on 3.5 million
bibliographic records, authority control, producing the master CD-ROM discs, 400
copies of the CD-ROM product, two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies, providing
400 copies of the software documentation/user manual, software license, training,
etc. The offeror shall provide a price for each additional copy of the CD-ROM
product and software documentation/user manual in excess of 400 copies. The
offeror shall also provide a price per bibliographic record in excess of 3.5
bibliographic records. The offeror shall provide firm, fixed prices for the
Original Contract Period and maximum prices for each extension period.

Annual Edition of the Statewide Database:

Original Contract Period:
First Extension Period:
Second Extension Period:
Third Extension Period:

$ 119,000 total
$ 124.000 total
$ 129,000 total

1 -4 000nwtotal

CD-ROM Product and Software Documentation/User Manual in excess of 400 copies:

Original Contract Period:
First Extension Period:
Second Extension Period:
Third Extension Period:

$ 210 per copy
$ per copy
$ " per copy

2$40 per copy

Bibliographic Record in excess of 3.5 million bibliographic records:

Original Contract Period:
First Extension Period:
Second Extension Period:
Third Extension Period:

$ 0 per record
0 0per record
$ per record

$ per record

S. Statewide Database Supplmeut: The offeror shall provide a total price for the
statewide database supplement. The total prices shall include all costs for the
creation of the statewide database supplement, producing the master C0-ROM discs,
400 copies of the CD-ROM product, two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies, etc.
The offeror shall also provide a price for each copy of the CD-ROM Product provided
in excess of 400 copies. The offeror shall provide firm, fixed prices for the
Original Contract and maximum prices for each extension period.

Statewide Database Supplement:

a. Original Contract Period:
b. 7irst Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Thitt Extension Period:

IAU::iZRIZSD s:NA:URz

$ 80,000 total
$ 84,000 total
$ 88,000 total
$. 2.00 total

January 30, 1992
DATE

a.
b.
C.

d.

a.
b.
C.
d.

a.
b.
c.
d.



RFP NO. 3201148
Page 29 of 33

EMBIT A
PRICING PAGE CONTINUED

The Library Corporatron

CD-ROM Product in excess of 400 copies:

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

$ 200 per copy
$ 210 per copy
$ 17n per copy
$ 230 per copy

C. Customized Changes: The of feror shall provide a price per hour for providing
customized changes in the search software pursuant to the state agency's request.
The offeror shall provide a firm, fixed price for the original contract period and a
maximum price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
4. Third Extension Period:

$ 100 per hour
$ 100 per hour
$ 1Lnn per hour
$ tnn per hour

D. Spinoff Product: The offeror shall provide a price per record for the creation of a
spinoff product on a CD-ROM disc and a 9 Track Tape. The offeror shall provide a
price CD-ROM Disc and per 9 Track Tape. The offeror shall provide a firm, fixed
price of the original contract period and a maximum price for each extension period.

a. Minimum $250;
CD-ROM Disc Maximum $2,500 Dependent on # of discs

a. Original Contract Period: $ 0.01 per record $ per disc
b. First Extension Period: $ sae as a- per record $jg , per disc
c. Second Extension Period: $ same as a. per record $AAMg per disc
4. Third Extension Period: $ sSe as a. per record $ same per disc

9 Track Tape
a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
4. Third Extension Period:

Minijia_$250; 20/5Pri gpds
SsME.AL.Aas. per record

same as a. per record
$ s .E as a . per record

E. Sbelflist: If proposed, the offeror must provide a price per record for the creation
of a machine readable catalog record from printed shelflist in USMARC format. The
offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for the original contract period and a
maximum price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract Period:
b. First Extension Period:
c. Second Extension Period:
d. Third Extension Period:

$ .. LL per record
$ ._5 per record
$ _ 60 per record
$ .6s per record

F. The offeror must provide a total price per library for any additional hardware neededd
to operate the search software. The total price shall include the cost of the
equipment and installation. The offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for the
original contract period and a maximn price for each extension period.

a. Original Contract period :
b. Firs: Zx:ansion Per::
c. Second x:ension Period:
d. Third Zx:ezsizn ?r:i4d:

$ N/A per record
'11T1--o per record
N/A per record
N 7/ oper rec-rd

The firm, fixed prices stated above are provided in accordance with the tens and
conditions R7? 3 0U'43.

[319]

$ N/A per disc
per disc
per disc
per disc



The Library Corporation

EXIBIT 3

PRICE ANALYSIS

Annual Edition of the Statewide Database

1. Creation of the Statewide Database 
S

2. Authority Control

3. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc

4. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product

5. Two magnetic ".600 bpi ASCII tape copies

6. 400 Copies of the Software Documentat..., User Man-al

7. List Other:

Training: not required, but if

desired by Missouri State Library

is available at S300 per day plus expens

TOTAL (See price quoted for 00001 on the Pricing Page)

Statewide Database Supplement

1. Creation of the Statewide Database

2. Producing the Master CD-ROM Disc

3. 400 Copies of the CD-ROM Product

4. Two magnetic 1600 bpi ASCII tape copies

7. List Other:

.TAL (See prize p d for CCC3 on t'e ?ri:in ?age) 80'000

January 30, 1902
Afl RiZD S:zNA:'Ra

[320]

RFP NO. 3201148
Page 30 of 33

10

'0.01/record $35,000

0

200 each S80,000

S0

10 each - $4,000

$

$

$

$ 119,000

$0

$_200 each a $80,000

$0



APPENDIX F

EXAMPLE OF A COST ANALYSIS 
OF STATEWIDE DATABASES

BY FORMAT - MICROFICHE, CD-ROM, 
ON-LINE, AND OCLC.

321



Cost of State Database on Microfiche

ONE TIME EQUIPMENT STARTUP
COSTS

Microfiche readers

UNIT COST

l50.000

OCLC USERS

Number
o(Units Cost

0 Soo 000

M2TINETWISCAT USERS

Number
of Units Cost

0 $0000

ANNUAL COSTS
Equipment Maintenance/Other

OCLC

M300 maintenance/year $432.000 68 $29,376.000 $29.376.000

Terminal maintenance/year $540.000 91 $49,140.000 $49.140 000

Modem i Leased Linekyear $780.000 72 4 56,160.000 $56,160.000

System service fee/year $336.000 152 551,072.000 $51.072.000

Dial access password/year $248.000 48 $11.904.000 $11.904.000

Dial access/cataloging/hrs. 59.600 2,964 528,454,400 $28,454.400

Basic service fee $50.000 84 $4,200.000 $4,200.000

On-going support 11.7% $106,894.836 $106,894.836

Production of Records (Library)

Current cataloging
OCLC

Prime time $1.390 263,200 $365,848.000 $365,848.000

Non-prime time $1.170 147,069 $172,070.730 31172,070.730

Credits (30.500) 85,830 ($42,915.000) $42,915.000)

MITINET

MARC riche/year 390.000 200 $18.000.000 $18,000.000

Supplement/year $95.000 200 $19,000.000 $19,000.000

Retrospective conversion
OCLC

Prime time $1.170 6,151 77,196.670 I7,196.670

Non.prtme time 50.300 377,767 5113,330 100 $113,330.100

Microcon $0.340 295,437 $100,448.580 ISt100,448.580

MITINE T 50.000 $0.000 50.000

GPO $2,000.000 $2,000.000 $4,000.000

Database Maintenance

Add unique MARC records $0.070 240,000 516,800-000 50,000 $3,500.000 $20,300.000

Add non- MARC records 50.200 25.000 $5.000.000 $5,000,000

Update/change records 50.000 50.000

Delete records $0.000 $0.000

Correct errors $0.000 50.000

Delete duplicate records $1 000

LCC N conschdatiornindexes 50.005 $20,400.000 520.400-000

Extraction supportiyear $6,000.000 $6,000 000 56.000.000

.7 4-

[322]

TOTALCOST
for both

0.0se 0

50 .000

%We No j wo No L %-F "%A %1 %0

-



[323j

Cost of State Database on Microfiche continued)

Soikware DeveiopmentMatntenance

Annual salary programmer!

Administration

Annual salary iat.abase manager)
LTE recordkeeping

UNIT COST

$29.465 856

$18,925.235
$8,802-590

OCLC USERS

Number
of Units Colt

NUTINETWISCA T LSE RS

Number
of nto s Cost

$29-465 356

$18,925 .235

$8.802 590

Training/Consultation

Annual salary database manager $18,925.235 $18.925 235 $18.925.235
Other Annual

Supplies $4.100.000 $4,100.000 $4.100.000

Archival tapes $1,000.000 $1,000.000 51.000 000

MACC transmission 56.000.000 56,000.000 56.000.000

Travel $5,000.000 55,000.000 $5,000000

Statistics $500.000 $500.000 $500000
Products from Whole Database

Tapes $1,200.000 $1,200.000 $1.200.000

Microfiche

Master/title/copy $0.032 2,700,000 $86,400.000 $86.400.000

Copies/per set of fiche $554.000 100 $55.400.000 400 $221,600.000 $277.000.000

TOTA L (ONE TIME EQUIPMENT) $ 0.000 $ 0.000 S 0.000

TOTAL ANNUAL OCLC $1,053,180.316 $1,053,180.316

TOTAL ANNUAL BRODART/OTHER 5 73.200.000 . $ 474,818.917 $ 548,018.917

STATE MICROFICHE PROJECT TOTAL $1,126,380 316 S 474,818.917 $1.601,199.233

PRODUCTS FOR LIBRARIES

Products from Database Subset

Tapes archival)
Tapes deduped)
Microfiche
Mcrofilm
CD-ROM

WTSCAT Tapeload
lnitialOCLC number
InitiaL unique
Ann.Ial

None
per titlei.005
Varies
Varies
Varies

50.120 2.100,000 $252,000 000
$0.200 600.000 $120,000.000

Combination 315.000 $41.000.000

.5-.

TOTAL COST
for both

ser

529 465 156

518,925 235

58,302 590

II



C 324]

Notes for Costs of Database on Microfiche

Allcosts are oased or. actual costs of the current project.

Participation:

OCLC users include 100 libraries which currently have online
access. Processing center users are listed under WISCATMITINET
for all costs besides cataloging because this is the current format
used to supply them with bibliographic and holdings information.
This distinction is not important for this scenario, but this assign-
ment is consistent with that used in the other scenarios. There are
400 WISCAT/MITINET users.

Equipment:

A microfiche reader is needed to use the WISCAT microfiche. It is
assumed that all current usersof WISCAT have this equipment.

Production of records:

OCLC libraries contribute records through use of the OCLC system
and these records are added to the database by processing OCLC
archival tapes. Other libraries add records through use of MITINET
or through tapeload of records from other automated systems. Costs
of adding both OCLC and MITINET transactions to the database are
listed under database maintenance. Production of records using
either method also involves labor costs which are not listed here.

The cost of computer transactions and other items are listed in this
budget. OCLC costs are based on actual OCLC usage for 1985/86
and prices are for 1986187. While OCLC costs are usually paid for
locally, the costs are included here to show all costs associated with
the project.

The MARC fiche allow MITINET libraries to use bibliographic
records in the Library of Congress MARC file which are not on the
WISCAT database. Currently libraries share use of the MARC
fiche, therefore fiche are only bought for 1/2 of the libraries
participating.

Costs for retrospective conversion including labor have been kept as
a result of tracking LSCA projects. Use of OCLC has averaged 5.66
per transaction and use of MITINET has averaged 5 36 per trans-
action when labor is taken into account.

Database maintenance:

While bibliographic records can be added from a variety of sources.
only the addition of unique records incurs a cost. Once a record is in
the database, there is no charge to add holdings from another library
or to make changes to that record.

Local products:

Local products can be created after records are extracted from the
database. Extraction costs are not charged if local CD-ROM or COM
products are produced. There is an extraction charge for tape pro-
ducts if the databaseisi to be extracted do not equal 100,000 titles.
Support for smaller database extraction is included under MITINET
since these libraries are most likely to have small databases.

Both OCLC and MITINET libraries can make extractions. Unit
costs for products vary depending on the number of ties included.

For esamole. a small library wth 2.500 tot!es ni pay $ 97 per .t.e
for a microfiche or CD-ROM master and 5 90053 :er ::Ge or
microfiche cooies A large library wut n er $00 9c es par
$ 04 per title for a master and $ 000031 Der .2:e :r rye
copies. CD-ROM copies are oased on disc Si5 A. per Jos 'raer
toan title costs.

Notes on Purpose

* Development of an interibrary loan tool *or ver-icaton of
specific titles and library holdings.

The microfiche is a very useful tool for interlibrary loan. The data.
base includes records from a variety of types and sizes of libraries.
Full bibliographic records are available to aid in identification of
different editions and formats. Information on nearly 3 million
titles and 10 million holdings are available,

The weakness of this format for interlibrary loan is that the material
cannot be kept up-to-date instantaneously. Normally a database of
this size would not be entirely updated more than annually. It
would be possible to produce supplements.

e Development of a reference tool for verifying available
information on specific subjects and verifying complex bibliographic
citations.

The microfiche can be used for this purpose. Subject access is
available.since a separate subject section has been created.

* Development of a database which could be used by libraries to
create machine-readable bibliographic records for use in local and
area level automation projects.

The database from which the microfiche is created allows for records
to be contributed from a variety of sources. Records can be extracted
from this database for a single library or a group of libraries. Sub-
sets of the database can be produced on tape, COM, or CD-ROM
format. Statewide prices have or could be negotiated for any of the
above formats. The bibliographic records extracted will be the
master records in the database and will not contain each library's
bibliographic variations. The detailed holdings statement will
contain each library's variations.

* Development of a tool which could be used as a guide for selecting
miscellaneous pieces of cataloging information: such as call num-
bers, subject headings. correct main entries, cataloging information.
catalog card filing rules, and other information.

The bibliographic records on the microfiche would contain all of the
above information.

* Development of a catalog which could be used by local libraries as
a backup to local online circulation systems or library catalogs.

Libraries currently use the microfiche to locate titles in their collec-
tions when online systems are not operating. Purchasing copies of
the statewide fiche is often more cost effective than creating a local
fiche.

* Development of a tool which could be used as a primary source of
current cataloging information.

-76-



this WISCAT microfiche does not serve as an efficient means of
providing current cataiog:ng. The database wil not be up-to date
unless supplements are produced. The informationn may oe useful at
the time the database a produced but will become decreasinglV so as
time passes. Lbraries can create current machine-readable catalog
records using the LC MARC fiche and VITINET retro but cannot
produce cards ,n this process. Cards can be produced using
MITINET/ marc and LULTRACARD MARC on an IBM-PC.
However. ,t will not be cost effective to produce all records in thisfashion and may not provide satisfactory Input .nto the database as
duphcate records could be created and go undetected.

Other Comments

The WISCAT apes received rm Brodar t could be oaded to
OCLC at a cost >f 5124,300 OCLC oid r ad eac w record o t
tape and set a three letter code for earn library listed 7t 3t cot ear
how these records would be pdated on OCLC J holdIngs chargedOCLC cannot currently process MITINET transactions Detaied
holdings informatIon 'call number, copies, etcA. would not be entered
into OCLC If the tapes are loaded into OCLC. ony QCLC ibrares
would have access to the records via OCLC. In thIs case, OCLC
lbrar es might not need a copy of tne CD-ROM equipment or a copyof the CD- RO M disks.

[325]



Cost of State Database Online Using OCLC

OCLC USERS MIT.NETWISCAT USERS
TO

NuwberJ Yuwroer
LUNIT COST ofr m Cost %ft . " Cost

ONE TIME EQUiPMENT STARTUP
COSTS

Leased line users

M300 microcomputer
Printer/cables

Dialup user

Microcomputer

Printer/cables

Modem

Software

OCLC profilinr- full user

ANNUAL COSTS
Equipment Maintenance

M300 maintanance/year

Terminal maintenance/year

Modem (leased linelyear

System service fee/year

$3,015.00

$358-00
.35. .0 .0 $8,950.00

$1,405.17

$358-00

$371.00

$30.00

$150 00

0

0

0

0

0

0
I0

$0 00

tn0 M

50.00

$0.00

$0.00

50.00

so 00
$000 335 $50,250.00 550.250,00I V t 4

TALCOST

+or Dotri

-- -- -- -

25

2.1

375

375

375

335

S"5.375.00

taqr9A

$526,938.75
3134.250.00

$139,125.00

$11,250.00

$50,250.00

$432.00

$540.00

$780.00

$336.00
,33. 59,472.00

Production of Records (Lib rary)

Current cataloging

Primetime $1.39 263,200 $365,848.00 837,500 $1,164,125.00 51,529,973.00
Non-prime ume $1.17 147.069 $172,070.73 0 $0.00 5172,070.73
Credits (30.50) 85,830 (342,915.00) 0 $0.00 $42.915.00)
Catalog cards $0.054 4.706,756 $254,164.82 4,18.500 $226,125.00 $480,289.82

Retrospective conversion

Primetime $1.17 6.151 $7.196.67 0 $0.00 $".196.67
Non-prime time 50.30 377.767 $113.330.10 1,005,000 $301,500.00 $414.830.10
Microcon $0.34 295,437 $100.448.58 0 $0.00 $100,448.58

Onhne Access

Telecommunicauons

Leased line/year $1,680.00 112 $188.160.00 25 542.000,00 $230,160.00
Dialup

Password authortzation/year $248.00 48 $11,904.00 375 $93,000.00 $104.904.00
Catalog & search charge/hr, $6.99 2,964 $20,718.36 104,520 $730,594.80 5751.313,16
Searching charge/hr. 56.99 0 $0.00 3,120 $21,808.80 $21.808.80

Searching transactions

Searches 1 Ai/Tthreshold $0.06 842,600 $50,556.00 611900 $36,714,00 $8".2"0.00
Searches/ioldings $0.15 186.420 $27963.00 502.000 575,300.00 5103,263.00

Administration

COWL Basic service fee $50.00 84 54,200 00 400 $20.000.00 524.200

68

91

72

152

$29,376.00
$49,140.00

$56,160 00

S.'s1 01712 w

25

0

25

'? A

$10,800.00

$0.00

$19.500.00

$75,375.00

$526,938.75

$134,250.00

$139.125.00

$11,250.00

$50,250.00

540, 176.00

S49,140.00

$75.660.00

[326]

F -

I



Cost of State Database Online Using OCLC continued)

OCLC USERS YMrTNET WISCAT USERS
TOTALCOST

Number Number -
UNIT COST ofUnts Cost oCUn. st 3ers

TrainingConsultationmSupport

Inmtal training 31,00000 0 $0.00 400 $400,000.00 5400,00 30

On-going support 11.7% 145,818184 $226.443.29 3 12.268 3
Products from Whole Database

Archive tapes/annual

Per record charges $0.035 12,000 $420.00 $420 00

30.030 48,000 $1,44000 31,440.00

$0028 180,000 $5.040.00 $5,040.00

$0023 360,000 58,280.00 $8,280.00

30.019 507,933 $9,650.73 59,650.73

30.015 0.00 $0.00 1,237,500 $18,562.50 $18,562.50

30.014 91.934 $1.287.08 $1,287.08
Per tape charge $35.000 67 $2,345.00 4 $140.00 $2.48500

Per 'frequency* charge $55.000 12 5660.00 $660.00

TOTAL ,ONE TIME EQUIPMENT) 50.00 5946,138.75 $946,138.75

TOTAL ANNUAL $1.634,334.91 33,395,019.39 35.029.354.30

ONLINE ACCESS PROJECT TOTAL 31,634,334.91 34,341.158.14 55,975,493.05

PRODUCTS FOR LIBRARIES

Products from Database Subset

Tapes (archival)
Tapes ideduped)
Microfiche
CD-ROM
Local database storage
Interlibrary loan transmission

Produces
Referrals
Holdings display use
Lending credit
Serials union list holdings
Microenhancer software

Serials union list
Holdings data creation
Holdings updates
Start up tees

Subject searching/BRS
Conect hour
Citations

None
per title/.005
Varies
Varies
per title/.005

$0.99
30.99
$0.15

(50.20)
0.06

$275.00

$0.24
$0.07

$340.00

$56.00
50.14

WISACAT Tapeload
I taisLOCLC number
Initialiunique

30 120 2,100,000 $252.000.000
30.200 600,000 $120.000.000

.79-

[327]



Notes for Costs of OCLC Online Database

Costs for OCLC libraries are based on the number of trarsactuons or
uWits used or in place Lm 1985-86 times the costs per transactions or
units for 1986-87. Costs for MITINET libraries are oased on unit
costs multiplied by the estimated number of units in the cost
scenario document.

Participation:

OCLC library costs are based on the current level of equipment and
activity, MITINET/WISCAT library costs are based on a single
terminal per library Costs are based on 85 OCLC libraries and 25
MITINET/WISCAT hbraries using leased lines and 15 OCLC
libraries and 375 MITINET/WISCAT libraries using dialup lines.
OCLC processing center libraries receive cataloging through the
processing center, but have online access for searching.

Equipment:

OCLC libraries use M300 terminals (microcomputer> or older model
terminals as already installed. Dialup users use IBM-PC equipment
at state contract costs. This equipment includes a standard IBM-PC
(256K) with monitor, keyboard, cables, printer and modem. Apple
or IBM-PC compatible equipment would be cheaper. Many libraries
already have equipment which could be used, however, costs are
figured as if all libraries bought equipment for this purpose. All
MITINET libraries already have Apple or IBM terminals which
could be used for this purpose if the level of searching does not
interfere with other services.

Production of records and data input:

All production of records would be accomplished online via the
OCLC database. The 65 OCLC processing center libraries receive
current cataloging and retrospective conversion services through
the processing center library and the costs are included in the OCLC
column for cataloging.

Database maintenance:

Ongoing database maintenance for OCLC is built into the produc-
tion of records costs incurred by each library when a record is used
for the first time.

Telecomnunications:

It is assumed that libraries using the dialup connection to catalog
will spend 26 hours per month using OCLC. Processing center
libraries which do not catalog or do retrospective conversion will
spend 4 hours per month using OCLC. Subject searching is not
included as this cannot be done on OCLC.

Administratuon/training/consultation/support:

The category for on-going support covers costs for all of the above
items and is put under training because this is the predominate pur-
pose. This cost is figured as a percentage of costs associated with
annual equipment maintenance, production of records, and search.
ing costs. Telecommunications, equipment costa, training and other
items are not included.

Product. frm the wrote database:

At the present time. OCLC ts developing two tyoes of CD.RO\(
products. The Frst :s a Reference CD- RO., the second .s a ca--a
Log:ng CD-ROM whicn has an onine connectio( ,or batch upLadng
or records. Both products will contain porcions of tre OCLC data.
oase. No cost, production schedule or specific prcduc: descrpt on
informationn are yet available. It s not known whether OCLC *L: e
able to produce custom CD-ROM from indmividual library -r state.
wide databases even Jail holdings are in OCLC

Local products:

OCLC produces archival tapes which contain a copy of each record
created each time the system is used. These tapes contain duplicate
records for the same title and must be *deduped" prior to being used
in any automated system. They are also in OCLC MARC format
rather than LC MARC format. There is often an added cost to carry
out this process prior to loading a record into a local system.

OCLC does not produce microfilm or microfiche from the biblio-
graphic database. Microfiche can be produced from the serials union
list only. CD-ROM products are not currently produced for indivi-
dual libraries or groups of libraries. Tapes are not produced for
customized output which can be loaded into other vendors systems or
microcomputer systems. Libraries can contract with other vendors
to process OCLC archival tapes and produce microfilm, microfiche,
CD-ROM or customized tape products. Each library would have to
do this individually as this process would not be covered by a
statewide contract under this scenario.

Notes on Purposes

e Development of an interlibrary loan tool for verification of
specific tiles and library holdings.

The OCLC database contains 14 million records with holdings for
libraries throughout the country. A directory contains interlibrary
loan policies for the libraries with holdings in the database. An
online interlibrary loan system allows for the completion of both
verification and request transmission processes. Costs for verifica-
tion of requests are included under searching and display holdings
charges. Costs of using the interlibrary loan subsystem are not
included in this analysis.

e Development of a reference tool for verifying available informa-
tion on specific subjects and verifying complex bibliographic cita
tions.

The database contains full bibliographic records which can be used
for verification of complex citations. Since the database is very large
and up-to-date, most stations are likely to be found.

Subject access is not available on the OCLC online system. Subject
access to a portion of the OCLC rile which may not contain all the
holdings of any individual library is available through BR.S. The
costs of searching BRS are not included in this analysts.

e Development of a database which could be used by libraries to
create machine:readable bibliographic records for use in local and
area level automation projects.

-so-

[328]



Bibliographic records and holdings cannot be extracted directly from
the OCLC database. Records of each transaction are produced on
archivat tapes, WILS receives monthly archival tapes from OCLC
containing the records of all OCLC users. These tapes are

maintained by the l~WMadison Adminstrative Data Processing

Department (ADPI. Extractions can be made from the archival
tapes by ADP. This cost will normally not exceed $400 and varies
depending on the number of records extracted.

These archival tapes must be processed by a vendor prior to loading

the records into most local systems. Many vendors of mini-computer

systems can process these records, but there may be an added cost to
do so. Microcomputer vendors frequently cannot process these
OCLC archival tape records, The costa of processing archival tapes
are not included in this cost analysis.

Some vendors have the capability of loading records individually
from the OCLC online system to the local system. This process
requires purchase of additional equipment and the cost of doing this
is not provided in this coat analysis.

a Development of a tool which could be used as a guide for selecting
miscellaneous pieces of cataloging information. such as call num
bers, subject headings, correct main entries, catalog card filing
rules, and other information.

The database contains all of the above information and could be used
for this purpose.

* Development of a tool for use in selection of materials for library
collections.

The size of the database makes OCLC a good source of information
on the availability of titles and can be used to determine if purchases
are needed.

OCLC also has both an onlne and a microcomouter based ac.siions system which facl.,tates the ordering process, ,-cluding direct
transmission of orders to many jobbers. The cost of the ecq.;stion
are not included in this cost analysis.

* Development of a catalog which could be used by local braries as
a bacKup to local online circulation systems or library catalogs.

Although OCLC could be used as backup to local online crculation
systems or online catalogs, its value for this purpose is limited
because the database contains only master records. Call numbers

and other local modifications are not shown on the online system.

Also only three-letter symbols are shown on the online system so

internal four-letter code information is not available online.

* Development of a catalog which could be used by library users to

supplement local library catalogs.

Some OCLC libraries have OCLC terminals in their public access
a:eas for staff and patron use.

e Development of a tool which could be used as a primary source of
current cataloging information.

The primary purpose of the OCLC system is shared cataloging.

Catalogng is the foundation upon which all the other features of the

system are built. Through the cataloging process. a database for

verification and interlibrary loan is created. Libraries may make

modifications to records in the database and these modifications are

kept on the archival tapes.

.81-

[329]



[3303

Cost of State Database Online Using Brodart

OCLC LSERS NLTINETWISC AT USE RS
TOT AL COST

Number Number
UNIT COST ofUn; s Cost fit. Cst

ONE TIME EQUIPMENT STARTUP
COSTS

Leased tine users

Technical services terminal $2,384.00 159 S379056.00 25 $59,600.00 3438656 00
Printer and adapter $1,400 00 85 $119,000.00 25 $35.00000 $54,000 00
Cluster adapter (multple term. 3500.00 47 $23,500.00 0 $0.00 $23.500 00
Modem $4,450.00 85 $378.250.00 26 $115700 00 $493950 00
Software 30.00 85 $0.00 25 50.00 50 00
Installation $680.00 85 $57.800.00 25 $17,000.00 $74800.00

Dialup users

Microcomputer $1,405.17 15 $21,077.55 375 $526.938.75 $548,016.30
Printer/cables $358.00 15 $5.370.00 375 $134,250.00 $139.620 00
Modem $371.00 15 $5,565.00 375 5139.12500 $144,690.00
Software $150.00 15 $2,250.00 375 S56250.00 $58,50000

ANNUAL COSTS
Equipment Maintenance

Technical services terminal/year $312.00 159 $49,608.00 25 $7,800.00 $57.408 00
Printer $252.00 85 $21420.00 25 $6,300 00 $27,720.00
Cluster adapter/year $120.00 47 $5,640.00 0 50.00 $5,640.00
Modem leased linet/year $360.00 85 $30,600.00 25 $9,000.00 $39,600.00
Software $0.00 85 $0.00 25 $0.00 $0.00

Production of Records tLibrary)

Current cataloging

Transactions $0.00 496,099 $0.00 837,500 $0.00 $0.00
Catalog cards 50.04 4.706,756 $188.270 24 4,187,500 $167.500.00 $355,770.24
Storage/year 30.005 496.099 $2,480.50 837.500 $4,187 50 $6,668 00

Retrospective conversion

Transactions $0.00 679,355 $0.00 1,005,000 $000 $0.00
Storage/year $0.005 679,355 $3,396.78 1,005.000 $5,025.00 $8,42 78

Database Maintenance

Add unique records $0.07 240,000 $16,800.00 50,000 $3,500.00 $20,300.00
Add non-MARC records S0 20 25,000 $5.000.00 $5,000 00

Updatechange records $0.00

Delete records $0.00

Correct errors 50.00

Delete duplicate records

LCCN consolidation/indesee 50.005 $20,400.00 $20.400.00
GPO $2,000.00 $2000.00 $4.000.00
Storage costs/month $10.000.00 $120,000.00 S120,000 00
Extraction support/annual $6,000.00 $6.000 00 56,000 00

-82-



[331]

Cost of State Database Online Using Brodart !continued)
I I

OCLC USERSOCLCb USERS

Number

MITINETqWISCAT tSERS

Number

UNIT COST ofUnits Cost of 5 Cost

Onhne Access

Telecommumccions

Leased line
$14,400.00 $14.400 00

Main dropper month $1.200-00

Multi-drop lineswper month $330.00 85 $336,600.00 25 $99,000.00 
$435,600.00

Port accaess/per month $250.00 85 $255,000.00 25 $75.000.00 $330,00000

Dialup

Tymnet ports/per 8/month $1,600.00 15 $36,000.00 375 $900,000.00 $936.000,00

Logon/port access/month $182.00 15 532,760.00 375 $819,000.00 $851,760,00

Phone charges $7.00 15 $34,020.00 375 $850-500.00 $884,520-00

Transaction Costs $0.00 1,029,020 $0.00 621.000 $000 $0.00

Administration

Salary & f.b. (db managersiyear $37,850.47 $37,850.47 
$37,850 47

LTE quality control $8,802.59 
$8 802.59 $8,802.59

Training/Consultation

Salary & f.b. (trainer/consVyear $26.516.64 $26.516.64 
$26,516.64

Training from Brodart $500.00 $1,000.00 
$3,000.00 $4,000 00

Other (Annual)

Supplies $4,100.00 
$4,100.00 $4,100-00

Travel $10,000.00 
$10,000.00 $10.000.00

Statistics $500.00 $500.00 $500.00

Products from Whole Database

Tapes $1,200.00 
$1,200.00 $1,20000

TOTAL (ONETIME EQUIPMENT) $ 957,606.00 $1,027,613.75 $1,985,219.75

TOTAL ANNUAL

ONLINE ACCESS PROJECT TOTAL $1,973.201.51 $4,234,195.95 $6.207,397.46

PRODUCTS FOR LIBRARIES

Products from Database Subset

Tapes (archival) None
Tapes deduped) per titlei.005
Microfiche Varies
CD-ROM Varies
Local database storage per title/.005

-83-

TOTAL COST



[3321

Notes for Costs of Brodart Online Database

All costs are oased on estimates made by Brodart. Actual costs
would :e ootasned through a bid process and might well be less than
listed here

?articipapion:

it is assumed that new equipment would be purchased for all
libraries. Costs are provided based on all OCLC Libraries having the
number of terminals they now have and WISCAT/MITINET lbrar-
es having a single terminal or microcomputer for use of the system.

It is assumed that all libraries would have online access to the
database either through use of leased lines or dialup lines. Costs are
based on 85 OCLC libraries and 25 MITINET/WISCAT libraries
using leased lines and 15 OCLC libraries and 375 MITINET/
WISCAT libraries using dialup lines.

Equipment:

The equipment used by libraries with leased lines includes: a Telex
terminal and printer and a 9600 baud modem. One extra modem is
needed for San Diego. Installation includes equipment and phone
line installation. IBM 3276 terminals may also be used. Terminals
with security features for public and patron use are available at
approximately the same price. The technical services equipment
would allow libraries to search the database and input data into the
database once authorization to do so is given. Microcomputers can-
not now be used on leased lines, but Brodart is working on this
capability.

Dialup users may use Apple or IBM computers and telecommunica-
tions software which emulates an IBM 3270 terminal Crosstalk and
Apple Access are recommended and it is not now known whether PC-
Talk or ASCII Express will also work). The cost includes a standard
IBM-PC I256K) with monitor, keyboard, cables, printer and modem.
Apple or IBM-PC compatible equipment would be cheaper. Many li-
braries already have equipment which could be used; however, costs
are figured as if all libraries bought equipment for this purpose. All
MITINET libraries already have Apple or IBM terminals which
could be used for this purpose if the level of searching does not inter-
fere with other services.

Production of records and data input

Libraries could have the capability of adding or updating records
directly into the database. There are several reasons this may not be
desirable from the point of view of the library or the state. The data-
base contains a master record. and it may not be desirable from a
quality control standpoint to give all users the authorization to
change that record n the database directly. Brodart would create a
workspace for records which are cataloged or changed.

It is assumed that all libraries will catalog on the system in this
scenario. Libraries which use Brodart for cataloging and want to
save local variations in the bibliographic record, must set up a
separate database with Brodart. Local database storage costs are
5.005 per record. Catalog cards cost 5.04 per record.

MITINETWISCAT users' transactions are figured on the basis of
400 libraries cataloging 2500 titles a year and doing 3000 retrospec-
tive conversions a year total for 198546 divided by 400i. It is
assumed that all libraries would catalog using this system.

Data)ase maintenance:

Whle babiographic records can be added f:n man anrares. or;
the addition of unique records :ncurs a ccst Once a record s n the
database. there IS no charge to add hod.c-gs fr moanotner ersrv or
to make changes to :nat record. The cost ' zne sad.t-on of .iniue
cataloging records ., sted under dataoase mn rte.rnace rather than
cataloging.

Telecommunications

Leased line costs are based on estimates of the cost of lnes From
AT&T. Actual line costs per library could vary depending on the lo-
cation of the library A average costs were used based on estimates for
the entire state. Line costs might be less f the state contracted for
leased line use as a part of the telephone contract, but this is not yet
possible. A trunk line is necessary from Wisconsin probably in La
Crosse)ito San Diego where the computer and database are located.

Dialup use does not incur phone line charges as Brodart uses an $00
number for this purpose. Telephone charges are included in the $25
connect time cost. It is assumed that libraries will use 27 hours per
month at $25 per hour. At 15 hours a month. Brodart recommends
using a leased line as this appears to be the breakeven point.

Training:

It is assumed in this scenario that Brodart would hold 6 workshops

around the state for training. It is assumed that DLS staff would be
hired to provide training as well.

Local products:

Local products can be created after records are extracted from the
database. Extraction costs are not charged if local CD-ROM or COM
products are produced. There is an extraction charge for tape pro-
ducts if the databases) to be extracted do not equal 100.000 titles.
Support for smaller database extraction is included under MITINET
since these libraries are most likely to have small databases. Both
OCLC and MITINET libraries can make extractions.

Unit costs for products vary depending on the number of titles

included. For example, a small library with 2,500 titles will pay 5.07
per title for a microfiche or CD-ROM master and 1.00053 per title for
microfiche copies. A large library with over 500.000 titles will pay
5.04 per title for a master and 5.000031 per title for microfiche
copies. CD-ROM copies are based on disc $15 per disc) rather than
title costs.

Notes on Purposes

e Development of an interlibrary loan tool for verification of
specific titles and library holdings.

The database would contain over 2.7 million bibliographic records
and over 10 million library holdings in Wisconsin. This database
would be updated frequently and be more up-to-date than the
WISCAT microfiche and probably more up-to-date than a potential
CD-ROM product.

The database contains all four letter OCLC codes including internal
library codes. Experienced OCLC users would find this useful. Non-

-84-



[333]

OCLC users may find it confusing as no translation of library names
is used ason WISC AT.

The software does allow transmission of interibrary loan requests to
other libraries using the system.

a Development of a reference tool for verifying available informa.
tion on specific subjects and verifying complex bibliographic cite-
ions.

The database contains full bibliographic records which can be used
for verification of complex citations. In addition the search straw.
tegies are flexible and powerful. Subject access is available through
searching subject headings or by key word searching.

e Development of a database which could be used by libraries to
create machine-readable bibliographic records for use in local and
area level automation projects.

Bibliographic records and holdings can be extracted from the data-
base. Libraries can do retrospective conversion by searching the
database nine. Unique records can be added to the database using
the cataloging/maantenance function and records can also be modi-
fled. Use of the cataloging/maintenance function requires know.
ledge of MARC fields and tags. The staff in many non-OCLC
libraries are not currently familiar with MARC. and this would
require extensive training to assure the records would be created
properly. If the proper information is not entered in each MARC
field, the machine-readable records will not process correctly in a
future automated system.

0 Development of a tool which could be used as a guide for selecting
miscellaneous pieces of cataloging information: such as call num-
bars, subject headings. correct main entries, catalog card filing
rules, and other information.

The database contains all of the above information and could be used
for this purpose.

e Development of a tool for use in selection of materials for library
colecuons.

The database would contain bibliographic records and holdings of
500 or more Wisconsin libraries and would be a very useful guide to
determine whether or not items should be purchased depending on
esumated use of the item.

a Development of a catalog which could be used by local Libraries as
a backup to local online circulaUon systems or library catalogs.

The Brodart software was designed specifically to be used as an
online catalog for staff or patron searching. It is easy to use and has
a number of fairly powerful searching capabilities. Hardware and
software security features are available for staff or patron searching.
It would be very useful as a backup to an online circulation system or
catalog for finding bibliographic informauon. It would not keep
track of circulation information. Only one user could use a single
work staton at a time. Depending on the frequency of use, more
than one terminal might be needed for patron use.

a Development of a catalog which could be used by library users to
supplement local library catalogs.

The software was soectfcslv designed for >nine ca.acg use It .
possible to estr:ct searhes tOOny the Ildings its ij-g:e rary so
thi the state .nor' ast c"d :e used as a xa. .brar :italog

e Development ofa tool whichh couid be used is I or fry source of
currentt ctaiging riorratcn

This software is not designed primarily for :sig'rg Cur-erry
libraries can print shelf st cards on site. arid Brodart hes 'Ate solty
to produce full sets of catalog cards as an oftie Service Use of the
system for cataloging requires knowledge of M ARC fieLds and tags
Libraries which use the dataase for cataloging purposes and wish
to keep local variations in the bibliograpnic records wouldd riced to
set up separate databases with Brodart.

In this scenario, it is assumed that catalogingt information would bekept online for one year only Libraries could also keep their ensure
database online, but the cost would be much nreater each year.
Llese they plan to use their individual database onlne, it e
assumed that transactions would be stored on tape after a year or
loaded into a local automation system on a regular schedule.
Interfaces may be available between Brodart and some circulaun
system vendors.

Brodart would need to update the database from the transactions
created in a master work~fle or the local databases. It is not clear
how frequently this would be done. Separate databases are neces-
sary to allow libranes to preserve local cataloging variations.

Other Comments

Since this scenario assumes that all current OCLC users would use
this system. there is a large one-time equipment cost to replace all
OCLC terminals and equipment. It is unlikely that this scenano
would ever be implemented as outlined here. Many OCLC users
would not want to change systems, and it would not be adv antageous
for all to do so. The OCLC database would contain many more
records than the WISCAT database ever will contain and libraries
will get a higher hit rate against that database.

This scenario includes costs for two services (interlibrary loan
transmission and subject searching) which are not in the OCLC
scenario costs. These services are included here, because they are
included in the base costs of the service and there are not additional
transaction costs associated with them.

Brodart currently does not have a system this large in operation.
The costs as presented here, however, provide a conceptual view of
the unit costs and the effect of applying them to a specified number
of libraries.

-85-



[334]

Cost of State Database On Co impact Disc
OCLC USERS MNTINET-WISCAT USERS TOTA L C OS-,

Number Nxmber %rbot

UNITCOST of urts Cost ofT'nltis Cost

ONE TIME EQUIPMENT STARTUP
COSTS

CO ROM players t4) $2.700 000 
.400 51080.000 000 S1,350.000 000

Microcomputer $1,200 000 
100 $120,000.000 400 $480,000 000 $600.000 

000

PintermcableS $358.000 
35,8000000 400 5143.200.000 $179,000 000

Software $0000 
100 $0000 400 $0.000 50000

ANNUAL COSTS
Equipment Maintenance/Other

CD-ROM

Player/Microcomputar/year $200.000 100 
$20,000 000 400 ' 580,000.000 $100,000.000

Software $0000 100 0.000 
400 1 0.000 $0000

OCLC

M.300 maintenance/year $432.000 68 329,376.000 
$29,376.000
549,140.000

Terminal maintenance/year $540.000 91 549,140.000 .

Modem (leased line Vyvar $780.000 72 556,160.0001$56.160,000

System service feesyear $336.000 152 
551,072.000 %5t,072.000

Dial accsspasiword/year $248.000 48 $11,904.000 
I$11,904.000

Dial acceas/cataloging/lrs. 59 600 2,964 528,464.40028,454.400

Basic service fee $50.000 84 j 4,200.000 $4,200.000
11.7% 5106,894.836 I:--06,894.836On-gOing SUPPOr%

Production of Records (Library)

Current cataloging

OCLC

Prnme time

Non.prime time

Credits

MITINET

MARC fiche/year
Supplement/year

Retrospective conversion

OCLC
Prime urns

Non-prme time

Microcon

MITINET

GPO

Databese Maintenance

Add unique MARC records

Add non-MARC records

Update/change records

Delete records

Correct errors

Delete duplicate records

LCCN consolidation/indetes

Extraction support/year

$1.390
$1.170

(50.500)

$90.000

595.000

$1.170
50.300

50.340

50.000

263,200 S365,848.000

147,069 $172,070.730

85,830 (S42.915,000)

6,151 37.196.670

377.767 $113,330.100
295,437 1100,448.580

$0.070

$0.200

50.000

$0.000

50.000

50.000

50.005

$6,000.000

240,000 $16,800-000

$365,848.000

$172,070.730

542915-000)

200 $18,000.000 $18,000.000
200 519,000.000 519,000,000

$7,196.670

$113,330.100
$100,448.580

50,000 50,000

$2,000.000 $4.000.000

$3,500.000

$5,000.000

$20,400.000

$6,000.000

50,000

25.000

$20,300.000
$5,000.000

$0.000

$0.000

$0.000

50.000

$20.400.000

6,000.000
I I___I_______ I ______________ _________

-86-

I .' -.00



[335]

Cost of State Database On Compact Disc (continued)

OCLC USE RS MITINETWISCATUSERS TOTAL COST

Number Number for'both
UNITTCOST of Units Cost of Units Cost Users

Onilne Access

Telecommunications $0.000 30 000

Leased line

Dialup

Transaction costs $0.000 $0000

Software Development/Maintenance

Annual salary (programmer) $29,465 856 $29,465 856 $29.465.856

Administrauon

Annual salary (database manager) $18,925.235 $18,925-235 $18,925.235

LTE recordkeeping $8,802.590 $8,802.590 $8,802.590

Training/Consultation

Annual salary (database manager) $18.925.235 318,925.235 $18.925.235

Other tAnnual)

Supplies $4,100.000 $4,100.000 4,100000

Archival tapes $1.000.000 $1,000,000 $1,000-000

MACC transmission $6,000.000 $6,000,000 $6,000.000

Travel $5,000.000 $5,000.000 $5,000,000

Statistics $500,000 $500.000 $500.000

Products from Whole Database

Tapes $1,200.000 $1,200.000 $1,200.000

CD-ROM

Msster/titlelcopy $0.032 2,700,000 $86,400.000 86.400.000

Copiesiper set of disks 160.000 100 $6,000.000 400 $24,000.000 $30,000.000

TOTAL (ONE TIME EQUIPMENT) $ 425,800.000 $1,703.200.000 $2,129,000.000

TOTAL ANNUAL OCLC $1,053,180.316 $1,053,180.316

TOTAL ANNUALEBRODART/OTHER S 19,800.000 $ 357,218.917 S 377,018.917

STATE CO MPACT DISC PROJECT TOTAL $1.498,780.316 $2,060,418.917 $3,559,199.233

PRODUCTS FOR UBRARIES

Products from Database Subset

Tapes (archival)
Tapes (deduped)
Microfiche
Microfilm
CD-ROM

IISCAT Tapeload
lnitia/OCLC number
Initiai/unique
Annual

None
per titlei.005
Varies
Varies
Varies

$0.120 2,100,000
10.200 600,000

Combination 315,000

$252.000.000
$120,000.000

$41.000.000

-87-



%otas for Costs of Compact Disc Dasabase

All costs are based on esUmates made by Brodart. Actual costs
would be obtained through a bid process and might well be less than
listed here

Parucipation:

OCLC users include 100 libraries which currently have online
access. Processing center users are listed under WISCAT/lITINET
for all costs besides catalogng because this is the current format
used to supply them with bibliographic and holdings information.
This distinction is not important for this scenario, but this
asigment is consistent with that used in the other scenarios.
There are 400 W1SCAT/MITINET users.

Equipment;

IBM-PC mcrocoesputrs and the four CD-ROM players ar pinced as
they would be purchased through Brodart. The printer and cables
are quoted at state purchasmng prices. The mucrocomputer is a 512K
computer with one disk drive and a full keyboard. The pnce is based
on purchase of 100 or more uuta. The price of both microcomputer
and CD-ROM players is expected to decrease. It is ales possible to
use IBM or compatible equipment purchased through the state
contract. but this does not appear to be cheaper at this time.

Production of records:

The bibliographic database to produce the CD-ROM is the sane as
the one used to produce the WISCAT nucrofiche. OCLC libranes
contribute records through use of the OCLC system and these
records are added to the database by procesig OCLC archival
tapes. Other libranes add records through use of MITINET or
through tapeload of records from other automated syTeins. Costs of
adding both OCLC and MITINET transactions to the database are
listed under database maitenance. Production of records using
either method also evolves labor costs which are not lined here.

The amt of computer transactions and other items are lined in this
budget. OCLC cne are based on actual OCLC uage for 156564
and pnes are for 15/7. While OCLC coas are usually paid for
locally. the cwts are included here to show all costs aocated with
the projet.

The MARC fche allow MITINET libraries to ua bibliographic
records in the Library of Congress MARC file which are not on the
WISCAT database. Currently libraries share use of the MARC
fiche; therefore, fiche are only bought for 1/2 of the libraries
participaung.

Costs for retrospecuve conversion including labor have been kept as
a result of tracking LSCA projects. Use of OCLC has averaged ."
per transaction and a of MITINET has averaged $4 per
transacton when labor is taken into account.

Database maintenance:

While bibliographic records can be added from a variety of sources,
only the addition of unique records incurs a cost. Once a record is n
tie database. there is no charge to add holdings from another library
or to make changes Lo that record.

Libraries using CD-ROM receive many of the benefits of "sing an
online system such as online searching capabiliues. However titers
are no transacuon cot for searching once Ue product is created.
Since it isa fixed media, It also cannot be kept up to dsite in an online
mode. Theri are no telecommunicauons costs.

Local product&:

Local products can be created afer records are extracted from Lhe
datsbase. xtraction coats are not charged if local CD-ROM or COM
products are produced. There is an exiracuon charge for tape pro-
ducts if Use daoubaaees) to be extracted do not equal 100.000 titles.
Support for smaUer database extracuon is included under MITINET
since tese libraries are most lkely to have small databases. Both
OCLC and MITINET branes can makes exracnton.

Unit costs for products vary depending on the number of titles
included. For sample a small library with 2,500 utles will pay 5.07
per te for a mirofiche or CD-.ROM master and 5-00053 per Utle for
miucrofche copies. A large library with over 500.000 ties will pay
5.04 per utle for a master and 5.000031 per Utle for microfiche
copies. CD-ROM copies are based on disk (515 per disk) rather than
Utle coae

Notes on Purpoes

0 Development of an interlibrary loan tool for verification of
speciic ties and library holdings.

The CD-ROM would be a very useful tool for intrlibrary loan. The
database inlude mcords from a varety of types and %sns of librar-
se. Library staff can update the records in the library and provide
DLS with update transactsonj. The CD-ROM format allows more
flexible searching pattern than the microfiche version of Use
catalog. Author, Utile. truncated, and keyword searching techniques
are possible. Fl bibliographic records are available to aid in Wen.
tAcation of different editions and format. Informaton on nearly 3
million tiles and 10 million holdings are available.

Once a rcard has been identiied on the CD-ROM it will be possible
to write that record on a disk. Them records can then be sent to the
bulletn board synem.

The weakness of this format for interlibrary loan is that the norms.
tion cannot be kept up ts dateintatanously. Supplement disks
Can be produced perodually and the entre database can be updated
penodically. Nornally a database of tha sise would not be enurely
updated more than annually. It would be possible to produce supple.
ments.

a Development of a reference tool for venfying available mforma-
ton on specific subjects and verifyng complex bibliographic cita-
tans.

The CD-ROM database can be used for this purpose. Subject access
can be obtained by searching subject heading formation or by
using the key word searching capabilitis.

0 Development of a database which could be used by libranes to
crests machmie-readable bibliographic records for use in local and
area level automaton projects.

-88-

[j3361

Oniie acess:



The database from which the CD-ROM product 
is created allows for

records to be contributed from a variety of sources. 
Records can be

extracted from this database for a single library 
or a group of

libra tries. Subsets of the database can be produced 
on tape. COW, or

CO-ROM format. Statewide prices have or could be 
negotiated for

any of the above format. The bibliographic 
records extracted will be

the master record in the database and will 
not contain each library's

bibiogaphic variations. The holdings 
statement will contain each

library's variations.

* Development of a tool which could be used 
as a guide for selecting

miscellaneous pieces of cataloging information: 
such as call num-

bers, subject headings, correct main entries. 
cataloging information,

catalog card filing rules, and other information.

The bibliographic records on the CD-ROM 
would contain all of the

above informauon.

* Development of a catalog which could be 
used by local libraries as

a backup to local online circulation systems or library 
catalogs.

The CD-ROM workstation could serve as a workstation 
which could

be used when an online system is not operating. The user 
would also

be able to search in an online environment. The 
database would not

be as up-to-date as the online catalog or circulation 
system and a

means of supplementing this information 
might be necessary. How-

ever, a substantial portion of the information 
would be available. It

is possible to limit searches to only the 
holdings of a single library so

it would not be necessary for a patron or staff 
member to look at the

state holdings unless this was judged 
to be desirable. Circulation

information would not be available.

* Development of a tool which could be 
used by library users to

supplement local library catalogs.

The CD-ROM format can be used as 
an online catalog for inhouse

patron or staff use. The software 
has been specifically developed for

this use. Searching techniques are flexible 
and easy to use. It is

possible to search on a single library 
name or on a systemwide basis

as well as a statewide basis.

e Development of a tool which could be used 
as a primary source of

current cataloging information.

This system as costed out here will not serve as an 
efficient means of

providing current cataloging in the traditional 
sense- The database

will not be up-to-date unless supplements 
are produced. The infor-

mation may be useful at the time the database 
is produced but will

become decreasmgly so as time passes. 
The software does not

currently have the capability of printing 
catalog cards.

There are two ways in which libraries could supplement this system
to provide cataloging services. The Bibliofile software and disks can
be operated on the same equipment as a CD-ROM version of
WISCAT Libraries could subscribe to that system to obtam:n currentt
cataloging.

Libraries can create current machinereadable catalog records using
the LC MARC riche and MITINET/retro but cannot produce cards .n
this process. Cards can be produced using MlTINET1marc and
ULTRACARD MARC on an IBM-PC, However. it will not be coat

effective to produce all records in this fashion and may not provide
satisfactory input into the database as duplicate records could be
created and go undetected.

Other CouMents

This option requires a large one-time 
investment in equipment.

Once this investment is made. the on-going annual 
costs are less

than those for the current microfiche project.

The 0CLC costs listed are those which are 
paid for by local libraries

to obtain the servicesOf OCLC which libraries would continue 
to

incur regardless Of the existence of 
this project.

The WISCAT tapes received from Brodart 
could be loaded into

OCLC at a cost of S324,000. OCLC would read each record on the

tapeand set a three letter code for each library 
listed. It is not clear

how these records would be updated on 0CLC if holdings changed.

OCLC cannot curenUy process MITINET 
transactions. Detailed

holdings information (call number, copies. 
etc.l would not be entered

into OCLC. If the tapes are loaded into OCLC, only OCLC libraries

would have access to the records via OCLC. In this 
case, OCLO

libraries might not need a copy of the CD-ROM 
equipment or a copy

of the CD-ROM disks.

-89-

[337]



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andre, P. Q. J. "Optical disc applications in libraries."

Library Trends 37 (1989): 326-342.

"Autographics produces first edition of Maine CD-ROM

catalog." Advanced Technology Libraries 18, no. 4

(1989): 4.

"Automation News" ODL Source. 16, no. 7 & 8 (1991): 6.

Beall, Jeffrey. "AL Aside - Ideas: The dirty database
test" American LIbraries (March 1991): 197.

Beaton, Barbara. "Interlibrary Loan Training and Continuing
Education Model Statement of Objectives." RQ 31
(winter, 1991): 177-184.

Becker, J., and Hayes, R. M. A State-wide data base of
bibliographic records for Missouri libraries. Los
Angeles: Becker and Hayes, 1979.

Becker, J., and L.W. Helgerson. "CD-ROM public access
catalogs: Database creation and maintenance." Library
Hi Tech 6, no.1 (1988): 67-86.

Beiser, Karl, "CD-ROM Catalogs: The State of the Art."
Wilson Library Bulletin 63, no.3 (November 1988): 25-
34.

Beiser, Karl, Library Systems Coordinator, Maine Department
of Educational and Cultural Services, letter to [Stan
Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo] August 10, 1990.

Berger, Carol A. Library Lingo: A Glossary of Library Terms
for Non-Librarians. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill: C. Berger
and Company, 1990.

Bills, L. G., and L. W. Helgerson. "CD-ROM Public access
catalogs: Database creation and maintenance." Library
Hi Tech 6, no. 1 (1988): 67-86.

Bills, L. G., and L. W. Helgerson. "User Interfaces for CD-
ROM pacs." Library Hi Tech 22, v.6, no. 2 (1988): 73-
115.

338



339

Bocher, R. "MITINET/retro in Wisconsin libraries."
Information Technology and Libraries 3 (1984): 267-292.

Borg, W.E., and Gall, M. D., Educational research: An
introduction. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 1983.

Budd, John, Steven Zink, and Jeanne Voyles. "How Much Will
It Cost? Predictable Pricing of ILL Services: An
Investigation and a Proposal." RQ 31 (Fall 1991): 70-
74.

Cassell, R. E. "Pennsylvania's CD-ROM state-wide union
catalog," in SCIL: The Second Annual Software!
Computer/Database Conference and Exposition for
Libraries and Information Managers Conference
Proceedings, ed. N. M. Nelson. Westport, CT: Meckler,
1987: 34-35.

Cates, Dan, Network Coordinator, Iowa State Library, phone
interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo],
April 25, 1991.

Cates, Dan, Network Coordinator, Iowa State Library, phone
interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo],
March, 1992.

Clark, Katie, "Comparisons of online and CD-ROM databases:
Content and Retrieval Differences." Online/CD-ROM'90
Conference Proceedings. Weston, CT: Online, Inc.
(1990): 36-39.

Davis, W. P. "Missouri libraries move into CD-ROM world."
Show-Me Libraries 39, no.3 (1987): 4-6.

DeWath, N. V., and Palmour, V. E., Missouri state-wide
bibliographic data base survey. Rockville, MD: King
Research, Inc., 1980. ERIC, ED 195 228.

Drew, Sally, Director, Bureau for Interlibrary Loan &
Resource Sharing, Wisconsin State Library, letter to
[Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo] August, 1990.

Epler, D., and R. E. Cassell. "Access Pennsylvania: A
CD-ROM database project." Library Hi Tech 5, no. 3
(1987): 81-92.

Epler, D. M. "Networking in Pennsylvania: Technology and
the school library media center." Library Trends 37,
no. 2 (1988): 43-55.



340

Fayad, Susan, Senior Consultant, Network Development,
Colorado State Library, phone interview [with Stan
Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], February, 1992.

Flanders, Bruce. "Library Automation News and Analysis"
Kansas Libraries (June 1991): 6.

Frechette, Dorothy B., Deputy Director, Rhode Island
Department of State Library Services, letter to [Stan
Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], August 10, 1990.

Gatcheff, V. "LePac technologies tie the keystone state
together." Library Trends 37 (1987): 89-92.

Glazer, F. J. "That bibliographic highway in the sky."
Library Journal 110, no. 2 (1985): 64-67.

Goodlin, Margaret, School Library and Educational Media
Supervisor, State Library of Pennsylvania, letter to
[Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], August 14, 1990.

Griffin, David, Information Officer, WLN, letter to [Stan
Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo], August 24,1990.

Helgerson, L. W., "Acquiring a CD-ROM Public Access Catalog
System Part 1: The Bottom Line May Not Be The Top
Priority." Library Hi Tech 19, vol. 5, no. 3 (Fall
1987): 49-75.

Herrick, Jacci, Information Services Coordinator, Tennessee
State Library, letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City,
Mo], October 4th, 1990.

Kolbe, Jane, State Librarian, South Dakota State Library,
Survey form from Stan Gardner, completed and returned
December, 1991.

Lambert, Steve, and Suzanne Ropiequet. CD-ROM: The new
papyrus: the current and future state of the art.
Redmond, Washington: Microsoft, 1986.

Logsdon, L. "Brodart named vendor for state-wide database."
Show-Me Libraries 39, no. 5 (1988): 4-5.

"MainCat bill passes." Library Journal 112, no. 2 (1987):
20.

"Maine approves state-wide catalog." Wilson Library
Bulletin 62, no. 1 (1987): 10.



341

"MaineCat fact sheet." Nelson, N. M.,, Editor. SCIL: The

Second Annual Software/Computer/Database Conference and

Exposition for Libraries and Information Managers
Conference Proceedings. Wesport, CT: Meckler; 1987.

Mischo, Lare. "The Alice-B Information Retrieval (IR)

System: A Locally Developed Library System at Tacoma

Public Library". Library Hi Tech 29, no. 8(1) (1990):
7-20.

"Missouri libraries outfitted with CD-ROM." Wilson Library
Bulletin 62, no. 3 (1987): 15.

Missouri State Library, records and files dated from 1987 to

1991.

Moeller, Ronda, Coordinator Kansas Union Catalog, Kansas

State Library, phone interview [with Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, Mo], March 21, 1991.

Moeller, Ronda, Coordinator Kansas Union Catalog, Kansas

State Library, phone interview [with Stan Gardner,
Jefferson City, Mo], February, 1992.

Moore, B. "An Introduction to CD-ROM technology." Show-Me

Libraries 38, no. 11 (1987): 12-13.

Mundell, Jacqueline, Network Services Librarian, Nebraska

Library Commission, Survey form from Stan Gardner,

completed and returned December, 1991.

"Nevada installs CD-ROM catalog." Wilson Library Bulletin
62, no. 3 (1988): 14.

New Jersey Computer Applications Task Force. A report of the

Computer Applications Task Force. Trenton, NJ: New

Jersey State library; 1980. ERIC, Ed 234 766.

New York State Library. Libraries & technology: A strategic

plan for library resource sharing in New York. New

York: New York State Library; 1987. ERIC, ED 286
523.

Niemeyer, Mollie D. MCAT, The Missouri Statewide
Bibliographic Database: An Assessment. Master's
Thesis, Central Missouri State University, 1989.

Ohio State Library. "Ohio Shared Catalog CD-ROM Available."
The State Library of Ohio News. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State Library. 249, no. 1 (March, 1991): 12.



342

Ostendorf, JoEllen, Interlibrary 
Cooperation, Division of

Public Library Services for the State of Georgia, 
phone

interview [with Stan Gardner, jefferson City, 
Mo)

March, 1992.

Palmour, V.E., and DeWath, N.V. Missouri 
state-wide

bibliographic data base survey. Rockville, 
MD: King

Research, Inc., 1980. ERIC, ED 195 228)

Prosser, Judith, Interlibrary Cooperation Librarian, 
West

Virginia Library Commission, 
Survey form from Stan

Gardner, completed and returned December, 
1991.

Scheppke, Jim, State Data Coordinator, 
Oregon State Library,

phone interview [with Stan Gardner, 
Jefferson City, Mo]

March 1992.

Sessions, Judity, Hwa-Wei Lee, and Stacey 
Kimmel. "OhioLink:

Technology and Teamwork Transforming Ohio 
Libraries.

Wilson Library Bulletin 66, no. 10 (June 
1992): 43-45.

Slater, Frank, Librarian, North Dakota State Library,

Survey form from Stan Gardner, completed 
and returned

December, 1991.

Sloan, Tom W., Deputy Director, Delaware 
Division of

Libraries, letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson City,

Mo], October, 1990.

Smith, Barbara G., Chief, State Library 
Network and

Information Services Section of the Maryland 
State

Department of Education, Division of 
Library

Development and Services, letter to [Stan Gardner,

Jefferson City, Mo], September 8, 1990.

Smith, Frederick E., and Messmer, George E. J., 
"The

State-wide Automation Planning Process in 
New York."

Library Hi Tech 26, no.7(2) (1989): 85-89.

Smith, L. C., "Questions and answers: Strategies 
for

using the electronic reference collection," 
in Impact

on resource sharing and reference work.

Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Graduate

School of Library and Information Science, 1990.

Staffeldt, Darlene, Information Resources Director, 
Montana

State Library, letter to [Stan Gardner, Jefferson 
City,

Mo), September 11, 1990.



343

Uricchio, William, and Duffy, Michelle, "From Amoeba to
ReQuest: A History and Case Study of connecticut's
CD-ROM-Based Statewide Database." Library Hi Tech 30
no. 8(2) (1990): 7-21.

Watson, P. K. "CD-ROM catalogs -- Evaluating LePac and
looking ahead." Online 11, no. 5 (1987): 74-80.

Watson, P. D., & Golden, G. A. "Distributing an online
catalog on CD-ROM -- The University of Illinois
experience." Online 11, no. 2 (1987): 65-74.

Williams, Lynne, Automation Librarian, Alaska State Library,
Letter to (Stan Gardner, Jefferson City, Mo] November,
1991.

Wilson, Ashby, Director of Automated Systems and Networking
Division of the Virginia State Library and Archives,
phone interview [with Stan Gardner, Jefferson City,
Mo], April, 1991.

Wisconsin Council on Library nd Network Development.
Automating Wisconsin Libraries. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
State Department of Public Instruction, Division of
Library Services; 1987. ERIC, ED 922 479.

"WLN releases LaserCat. " Wilson Library Bulletin 61, no. 9
(1987) :10.