DOCUMENT RESUME ED 049 786 LI 002 759 AUTHOR Epstein, A. H.; And Cthers TITLE Bibliographic Automation of Large Library Operations Using a Time-Sharing System: Phase I. Final Report. INSTITUTION Stanford Univ., Calif. Libraries. SPONS AGENCY Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology (DHEW/OE), Washington, D. C. BUREAU NO BR-7-1145 PUB DATE Apr 71 GRANT OEG-1-7-071145-4428 NOTE 334p. EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$13.16 DESCRIPTORS *Automation, Information Processing, *Information Retrieval, *Information Systems, Library Cooperation, Library Networks, *Library Research, *Library Technical Prdcesses, an Machine Systems, Time Sharing, University Libraries IDENTIFIERS BALLOTS, Bibliographic Automation Large Library Operations, *Library Automation AESTRACT The first phase of an ongoing library automation project at Stanford University is described. Project BALLOTS (Bibliographic Automation of Large Library Operations Using a Time-Sharing System) seeks to automate the acquisition and cataloging functions of a large library using an on-line time-sharing computer. The main objectives are to control rising technical processing costs and at the same t2me tc provide improved levels of service. Phase I produced a prototype system that operated in the library using typewriter terminals. Data preparation and data control units were established; regular library staff were trained in on-line input and searching. Aiter a nine month period of operation, the entire system was evaluated. The requirements of a production library automation system were then defined. Findings are presented on shared facilities, economy and file integrity, the performance of on-line searching, terminal performance, staff and resource commitments, transferability, and the human aspects of system development. RecommendLticns are presented with respect to feasibility, economic factors, management, staffing, documentation, terminal equipment, and national planning.(Authox) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED FINAL REPORT EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM TH PERSON OR Project No. 7-1145 ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. E POINTSOF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOTNECES SA RILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICEOF EDU- .Grant No. OE a -1--7- 07115 -4428 CATION POSITION OR POLICY. %4) CO 'd,jOBLIOGRAPHIC AUTOMATION OF LARGE LIBRARY OPERATIONS USING A TIME-SHARING SYSTEM: PHASE I -4" CA 0 (.) A. H. Epstein, Douglas Ferguson, Eleanor Montague, rf w John Schroeder, Allen B. Veaner };Stanford University Libraries Stanford, California 94305 \--APRIL 1971 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology t- The research reported herein was performed pursuant to .a con- tract with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, GN/ Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education position or policy. ABSTRACT This report describes the first phase of an ongoing library automation project at Stanford University. Project BALLOTS seeks to automate the acquisition and cataloging functions of a large library using anon -line time-sharing computer. The main objectives are to_conttol.ristng_technicol processing cost,afiJ at the same t:IkieLo provide improved leveis .1:1T-service. 'Phase I produced a prototype system that operated in the library using typewriter terminals. Data preparation and data control units were established; regular library staff were trained in on-line input and searching. After a nine-month period of operation, the entire system was evaluated. The requirements of a production library automation system were then defined. Findings are presented on shared facilities, economy and file integrity, the performance of on-line searching, terminal performance, staff and resource commitments, transferability, and the human aspects of system development. Recommendations are 17 presented with respect to feasibility, economic factors, management, staffing, documentation, terminal equipment, and national planning. Suggested ERIC Descriptors (main terms) automation library research library technical process information retrieval university libraries (other terms) cataloging electronic data processing information processing library acquisition library cooperation library equipment library networks man machine systems CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary of Recommendations 4 1.2 The Problem Context 5 r. 1.3 Background Review 9 1.4 Scope of the Project 10 1.5 System Goals 11 1.5.1 Prototype goals 1.5.2 Production goals 12 2.0 PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMEPT 16 2.1 Organization and Staff Facilities 16 2.2 Project Review and Control 19 2.2.1 Review 19 2.2.2 Control 22 2.3 Library Environment 24 2.4 Computer Environment 24 2.4.1 Computer and peripheral equipment 26 . 2.4.2 System software 27 2,5 Library Analysis and Design 30 2.5.1 BALLOTS I analysis and design 30 2.5.2 The system development process 31 2.5.3 BALLOTS II detailed analysis 33 2.6 internal Project Documentation 35 2.7 Software Design and Development 39 2.7.1 On-line executive program 39 2.7.2 Internal file structure 39 2.7.3 Data base format 40 2.7. Index file organization 43 2.8 Terminal Selection 45 2.9 On-Line Interactive Searching 51 2.9.1 Program residence 51 2.9.2 Search language 52 2.9.3 An interactive search session 54 2.10 Prototype System Operation 56 2.10.1 Staffing and communicatiop 57 2.10.2 Training and text editor use 58 2.10.3 Data preparation 60 2.10.4 Data input and update 64 2.10.5 Printed outputs 72 2.10.6 Statistics and evaluation 73 1.1 3.0 FINDINGS 76 3.1 Shared Facilities 76 3.2 Economy and File Integrity 77 3.3 Performance of On-Line Searching 79 3.4 Terminal Performance 81 3.5 Staff and Resource Commitment 82 3.6 Usefulness to Other Libraries 84 3.6.1 System development level 93 iv 4 3.6.2 Organizational level 86 3.6.3 Equipment level 87 3.6.4 Software level 88 3.6.5 Library operations level 88 i 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Feasibility Recommendation 93/ 4.2 Economic Recommendation 94/ 4.3 Management Recommendation 94\ 4.4 Staffing Recommendation 95 4.5 Documentation Recommendation 95 4.6 Equipment Recommendation 96 4.7 National Planning Recommendation 96 5.0 REFERENCES 98 6.0 APPENDICES 102 6.1 Stanford University Libraries 103 6.2 Campus Facility Computer 116 6.3 Detailed Analysis Standards 119 6.4 Sample'Documentation Standards 156 6.5 Data Prepai'ation and Data Control 181 6.6 Sample Analysis/Design Standards 232 6.7 Project Management Standards 282 V 5 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Stanford University Libraries Book and Technical Processing Expenditures 8 2. Project BALLOTS Organization 20 3. Task Control Sheet (Completed Sample)., 23 4. Growth of the Stanford University Libraries , 25 5. 360/67 Software Configuration 28 6. System Development Process 32 7. Project Control Notebook Contents Page 37 8. Data Base File Format 41 9. Index File Format 44 10. Blank BALLOTS Input Coding Sheet 62 11. Completed BALLOTS Input Coding Sheet 63 IA 12. Annotated BALLOTS Input Coding Sheet 65 13. Sample Records in Input Format 67 vi. Li PREFACE Project BALLOTS is an on-going libraryautomation development effort at Stanford University. Phase I covers the period of prototype system development andoperation as well as the first months of production systemdevelopment. Since its inception, the project has benefited fromthe advice and assistance of many people. Although only a few of them can be mentioned in this preface, our appreciation goesto all who contributed during a long and complexdevelopment process. Special acknowledgment is extended to thefollowing persons and groups connectedwith the project: Paul Armer, former Director of the Stanford Computation Center; Roderic M. Fredrickson, former head of the Campus Facility (IBM 360/67) of the Stanford Computation Center; Ralph Hansen, Chief Librarian of the Acquisition Department; Jennette Hitchcock, Chief Librarian of the Catalog Department; Prof. William F. Miller, former Vice President for Research (now Provost of the University); Prof. Edwin B. Parker, Department of Communication; David C. Weber, Director of University Libraries; Members of the BALLOTS External Advisory Committee (see section 2.2 for a list of members). Many other persons in the universitycommunity--especially in the Libraries and the Computation Center--contributedthousands of hours. 1 The achievment of the prototype system is a result of the work done by the entire Project BALLOTS staff, plus that done by members of the Project SPIRES staff in areas of common software development. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the work of William Riddle (now of the University of Michigan Department of Communications), who designed the on-line executive program, and of James Marsheck, who played a major role in designing the search facility. Wayne Davison, Diana Delanoy, and Jerry West made significant contributions in the library systems analysis for the prototype system. Glee Cady and Carol Kayser were largely responsible for the smooth functioning of the Data Preparation and Data Control units in the library. Pam Dempsey of the Catalog Department and Fred Lynden of the Acquistion Department contributed many hours and their detailed knowledge of library operations. This report has been read and commented on by a special technical subcommittee of the BALLOTS External Advisory Committee, consisting of Fred Bellomy, Manager, University of California Library System Development Program; Grover Burgis, Director, Research and Planning Branch, National Library of Canada; Audrey Grosch, Head, Systems Office, University of Minnesota Library; John P. Kennedy, Data Processing Librarian, Price Gilbert Memorial Library, Georgia Institute of Technology; Fredrick Kilgour, Director, Ohio College Library Center; and David Weisbrod, Head, Development Department, Yale University Library. Particular appreciation is extended to Donald V. Black of System Development Corporation, who chairs this subcommittee.