Library Acquisilions: Prmtice & Theory, Vol. 13. pp. 257-258, 1989 0364-6408/89 S3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

ALA MID WINTER CONFERENCE 1989

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RTSD AUTOMATED ACQUISITIONS/IN-PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS

IN LIBRARIES DISCUSSION GROUP

January 9,1989 Washington, DC

OCTOBER IVINS

Louisiana State University Libraries

241 Middleton Library

Baton Rouge, LA 70803-3342

This division-wide discussion group began in 1982, and was originally more concerned with technical aspects of automated acquisitions. More recently, topics addressing various staff- ing concerns have been emphasized. Organizers and attendee8 have agreed that the practice of having several speakers initiate and focus the discussion with prepared remarks has been very successful. At the ALA Annual Conference in 1988, Dana Rooks (University of Hous- ton) and Penny Schroeder (Northwestern University, Law Library) addressed “Implement- ing the Automated Acquisitions System: Staffing Concerns.” Their remarks appeared in Volume 12, Number 2/3 of Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory. The Chair (October Ivins) and Vice Chair/Chair Elect (Jeanne Harrell of Texas A & M University) responded to questions raised in that discussion in selecting the next topic: “Automated Technical Services: What Do You Do When the System’s Down?”

Three librarians were invited to address the question from various organizational and sys- tem perspectives. Norma Martin, Head, Catalog Department, Louisiana State University Libraries, spoke about implementing NOTIS in a mainframe environment. Barbara Winters, Head, Acquisitions Services Department, Virginia Commonwealth University, described her experience with combined monograph and serials acquisitions on ALIS, then OCLC LS/2, and Faxon’s SC-10 systems. The final presenter was Gail Persky, Associate Director of Tech- nical Services for Automation Planning, New York University, where her work as a systems librarian requires familiarity with all technical services functions and a succession of systems, presently RLIN and Geac.

Speakers were encouraged to address several questions, but not to feel limited by them:

257

258 0. IVINS

1. Use a broad definition of “system” to include bibliographic utilities and local systems, and both hardware and software problems; in short, any problem or combination of problems that results in the unavailability of the utility or local system. What kinds of backups do you need to prevent the loss of data? Is there an established procedure for reporting problems with the system and/or utility? Whose responsibility is it to main- tain a log of problems?

2. What does the staff do? Does it depend on how long the system is down, or expected to be down? Do you dismiss student assistants and switch full-time staff to student jobs? Do you lend technical services staff to other areas? Are there manual projects in tech services that staff can work on?

3. Are these procedures standardized and documented, or are they ad hoc? Does what hap- pens depend on who is available to assign work?

A fruitful discussion resulted, with many audience members sharing experiences and ask- ing for additional information. Several attendees were concerned with restrictions experienced in union environments, where work could not be so readily reassigned. Others commented on the difficulties experienced in motivating staff to perform lower-level work. Many help- ful suggestions were made, and everyone in attendance gained insights into another type of challenge presented by in-process control systems.