In order to discuss the activities within the federal 
community looking 
toward a federal library cooperative center, it may be useful to review the 
paths by which our group got started on the subject. For that purpose I will 
summarize the results of a survey of the federal library community which 
convinced us that the needs of that community would be well served by 
cooperative undertakings.published or submitted for publicatio

Henderson, Madeline M.

English

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

MADELINE M. HENDERSONInstitute for Computer Sciences and TechnologyNational Bureau of StandardsWashington, D.C.Prospectus for a Federal LibraryCooperative Center*In order to discuss the activities within the federal community lookingtoward a federal library cooperative center, it may be useful to review thepaths by which our group got started on the subject. For that purpose I willsummarize the results of a survey of the federal library community whichconvinced us that the needs of that community would be well served bycooperative undertakings.The Federal Library Committee was established in 1965, with power torecommend policies to achieve better utilization of federal library resourcesand facilities, and to promote more effective planning and operation of federallibraries. To this end, the committee is authorized to examine and evaluateexisting federal library programs, including study of the need for and potentialof technological innovation in library practices. The parent committee devel-oped a mechanism of task forces, subcommittees and work groups to fulfill itsfunctional responsibilities. The Task Force on Automation of Library Opera-tions, in particular, was established to review and report upon the status ofautomation activities in federal libraries, to encourage development of com-patible automated systems where feasible, to furnish guidance to federal admin-istrators and librarians on automation problems in libraries, and to provideliaison between federal libraries and other groups interested in the applicationof automatic data processing to information and document retrieval.As a voluntary group of people engaged full time in their own agencies,the Task Force has directed its efforts and limited resources largely to thecollection of information about federal library automation. The group recog-*Contribution of the National Bureau of Standards. Not subject to copyright.56A FEDERAL LIBRAR Y COOPERA TIVE CENTER 5 7nized that some libraries are already operating such systems, some are plan-ning systems, and many are seeking guidance in applications. It felt, however,that a great accumulation of experience in library automation was to be foundin the federal government, and that study of this wealth of experience wouldbenefit not only the federal agencies, but the library and information servicescommunity as a whole.I must note here also, that the Task Force on Automation has notincluded the three national libraries in its efforts and concerns. Recognizingthe disparity between size and resources of most federal libraries and those ofthe national libraries-LC, NLM, and NAL as well as the existence andprogram of the National Libraries Task Force on Cooperative Activities de-scribed by Cylke in the preceding article, the Task Force determined to concen-trate on the activities and needs of the rest of the federal libraries.As one step in its program to collect information about federal libraryautomation, the Task Force served in a technical advisory capacity for a broadsurvey of the current status of automated operations in federal libraries. Aquestionnaire survey was conducted in 197071 by System DevelopmentCorporation with the support of the U.S. Office of Education, Bureau ofLibrary and Educational Technology.The survey was designed to accomplish three goals: (1) to define libraryoperations susceptible to automation, whether such operations are now beingautomated or not; (2) to describe automation techniques of potential use inlibrary operations, both those techniques now being applied and those ofpossible interest for library applications; and (3) to establish criteria fordetermining the feasibility of automation ("what to automate"), the types ofhardware and software available for library automation, and the variousfactors to be taken into account in considering library automation possibili-ties.Survey ResultsA general picture of the federal library community was gleaned from thesurvey. It shows that the community is widely dispersed within the U.S. andaround the world (figure 1); contrary to local belief, only 7 percent of allfederal libraries are within the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Perhapseven more surprising, only 60 percent are located within the continentalUnited States.The size of the libraries was determined from a number of factors. Forexample, the median size for a collection in a federal library is 16,500 totalholdings (table 1). Books are predominant among those holdings, but there arealso some less traditional materials such as audio recordings, maps, and films.58 1973 CLINIC ON APPLICATIONS OF DATA PROCESSINGA FEDERAL LIBRARY COOPERATIVE CENTER 5960 1973 CLINIC ON APPLICATIONS OF DATA PROCESSINGA FEDERAL LIBRARY COOPERATIVE CENTER 61Activity62 1973 CLINIC ON APPLICATIONS OF DATA PROCESSINGA FEDERAL LIBRARY COOPERATIVE CENTER 6364 1973 CLINIC ON APPLICA TIONS OF DA TA PROCESSINGFor several months in 1972 an unofficial study group, composed of anumber of federal library directors from the Washington, D.C. metropolitanarea and members of the Task Force on Automation, examined and discussedseveral aspects of possible cooperative effort among federal libraries, particu-larly for the purpose of determining the technical and administrative feasi-bility of establishing a Federal Library Cooperative Center. The initial func-tion of such a center is thought to be shared cataloging, with additionalservices and products desired by cooperating agencies to be added as quicklyas possible.In order to proceed with its evaluation responsibility, the study groupsought input on the technical characteristics of various cooperative or central-ized services. That is, we wanted to share the experiences of those operatingon-line cataloging, circulation, search and retrieval, acquisition, serials, andother bibliographic systems.In addition, the group wanted input from those involved with central-ized and cooperative ventures of various types, i.e., interagency centralizedprocessing, regional library cooperatives or subject-oriented cooperatives. Fromthese operational facilities we sought to learn about administrative and mana-gerial aspects as well as to get some data on the impact of the cooperative orcentralized operation on the services, products, and costs of the individualparticipants.Further, the group set out to examine the applicable federal bureau-cratic and organizational structure which can provide for cooperative activities.The legal or legislative characteristics of the federal establishment must beconsidered, as well as the language and intent of the authorizing or enablingcharters of appropriate departments and agencies, to determine what is con-ducive to or restrictive of federal cooperative activities. Also the responsibili-ties of the OMB, GSA, and GAO need to be studied, and federal policies orprograms in regard to computer utilization have to be examined. Thesestudies, we felt, should point out ways to accomplish the necessary sympathet-ic consideration of our recommendation for the establishment of a coopera-tive center.The systems or services examined include those of Stanford UniversityLibraries (the BALLOTS systems); the Shawnee Mission School System inKansas; the systems of NLM, NAL, NASA, and ILO; and the activities ofNELINET and SLICE; and, of course, the OCLC. In addition we were briefedon the characteristics of BIBNET-1000, the proprietary program of Informa-tion Dynamics Corporation.We were fortunate, furthermore, in being able to contract with Freder-ick Kilgour of OCLC for a study of the feasibility of a cooperative centerA FEDERAL LIBRAR Y COOPERA TIVE CENTER 65similar to the OCLC operation for the particular situation of federal libraries.Based on his extensive knowledge of the field and his broad understanding ofthe federal community, Kilgour reviewed for us the general library problem,the solution offered by a computerized cooperative, and the specific potentialof that solution for federal library problems. He recommended a set ofobjectives for a Federal Library Cooperative Center, defined organization andfunding arrangements, and described the implementation and operations ofsuch a center. Kilgour's report added immeasurably to our study of the centerconcept.It is our conclusion that in spite of shortcomings or the limited develop-ment of a number of these programs, the evidences of success in key elementsof their operation suggest that a cooperative effort among federal librarieswould be successful in offering useful outputs, would be technically feasible,and can be made economically viable.Current EffortsWe have, therefore, established a Work Group on the Federal LibraryCooperative Center (FLCC) as a formally constituted unit of the FederalLibrary Committee. The work group is pursuing two objectives: one is todraft a proposal for a planning grant for the development of a FLCC. Thepurpose of the planning grant should be the specification of the organizationand structure of the FLCC, its functions and management, the specification ofa program of action (i.e., tasks in priority order) in the development ofservices and outputs, the specification of resources required (manpower, equip-ment, etc.) for reasonable operation; a calendar for their acquisition; andother elements that may be determined.As a first step in drafting this proposal, we developed the followingstatement of goals for the FLCC:1. Facilitating the sharing of resources among federal libraries for thepurpose of: (a) making those resources freely and widely available tousers when and where they need them, and (b) enabling libraries toreduce their inventories while expanding their services through access toother collections.2. Providing means for reducing the rate of rise in the operating costs oflibraries by: (a) increasing the productivity of library personnel througheffective use of automation, and (b) making available access to variousinformation products and services to supplement the libraries' internalefforts.66 1973 CLINIC ON APPLICA TIONS OF DA TA PROCESSINGWe feel that this program of cooperative effort among federal librarieswill be based initially on applications of computer, communications andinformation technologies and will use these technologies to enhance themissions of libraries to furnish their users with the information needed toconduct agency programs, arrive at managerial decisions, and contribute topolicy-making in a timely and thorough fashion.Elements of the cooperative effort will include:1. On-line access to computer-based files for shared cataloging of variouscollections: monographs, serials, technical reports, maps, audiovisualmaterials, etc.;2. On-line access to computer-based files for retrieval of references inanswer to specific questions, for preparation of current awareness alert-ing services, for compilation of special bibliographies, etc.;3. On-line access to files and programs for technical processing, for bookordering and serials subscription efforts;4. Generation and maintenance of statistics on these cooperative activities,to support the operations and plans of the participating libraries.Further elements of this program of cooperative effort will in generaltake the form of implementing projects developed by the Federal LibraryCommittee and its various task forces dedicated to specific problems of thefederal library community.The second objective being pursued by the work group is an experi-mental hook-up to OCLC for the purpose of providing hands-on experiencewith shared cataloging in an on-line environment. This is not meant as a testof the OCLC system; that has already proved its feasibility and effectiveness.Rather it is a test of the concept of shared cataloging for the federalcommunity and a means for federal libraries to try out on-line access to alarge data base consisting of LC MARC records and additional MARC-typerecords.The negotiations with OCLC to provide this experimental hook-upinclude adding the OCLC system to the TYMSHARE network. This meansthat the test would be available to selected federal libraries in cities through-out the U.S., by means of a local phone call. Also, the TYMSHARE system iscompatible with a wide range of terminals which means that federal librarieshaving access to terminals already operating within their agencies have a goodchance of participating in the experiment with a minimum initial investment.The work group and the parent Federal Library Committee are nowseeking support for the startup costs in order to get this experiment under-A FEDERAL LIBRARY COOPERATIVE CENTER 67way. These costs include modification of the OCLC system to connect it toTYMSHARE, particularly programming an interface for the front end of theOCLC system so that the multiplicity of terminals available through TYM-SHARE can be accepted; and costs of the TYMSHARE hook-up and equip-ment, i.e., the cost of installing and maintaining a TYMSHARE node atOCLC. The participating federal libraries, then, will bear the expense of theterminals plus the variable costs for system use: connect hours, characterstransmitted, catalog cards requested, and titles matched and processed. Anapproximation based on these figures would suggest that the variable costmight be $2.10 per title.So the Work Group on the FLCC moves forward in its task of specifyinga federal library program of cooperation. The task bears promise of successbecause the climate for such cooperative programs is more hospitable todaythan has usually been the case. Tight budgets and limited resources are factsof life for all libraries, but only recently has there been a real appreciation forwhat sharing of resources and cooperative programs can accomplish in makingit possible to give good service within the limits of those resources. Thisappreciation has been coupled with a realization that increased productivitycan be accomplished through automation, and increasing the productivity oflibrary staff helps to reduce the rate of rise of library operating costs. So thechances of coupling the technical feasibility of library automation programswith the administrative feasibility of sharing and cooperating in establishingand operating those programs look much better than they used to.In our own case, the federal library community, we are further en-couraged by the fact that the GAO recently reviewed federal library opera-tions in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area and made several helpfulrecommendations. One, for example, dealt with the need for strengtheningOMB's role in the central management of libraries, in the sense of theirdeveloping efficient coordinating mechanisms to expand interagency coopera-tion and promoting improved plans of administrative management. Anothersuggested that OMB follow up on the work at OCLC for improving thecooperation of federal libraries in such activities as cataloging and control ofperiodicals.We feel, with the advances in technological capability available to us, theneeds and desires of federal librarians for help in automating for moreefficient operations so clearly expressed, and the encouragement on the partof GAO for cooperative programs by federal agencies, that the prospects for aFederal Library Cooperative Center are very bright indeed.REFERENCE1. Contained in: Automation and the Federal Library Community. Re-port on a survey available from the Federal Library Committee, Library ofCongress, Washington, D.C. 20540.

Prospectus for a Federal Library Cooperative Center

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository