Intrigued by conflicting reports of the interest in online ordering being displayed by different types of libraries in the United States, the Editors recently undertook a brief telephone survey to gain some current insight.
In 1982, as part of a study conducted for Library Technology Reports, we had queried 80 academic, public and special libraries about the essential characteristics of automated acquisitions systems. At that time nearly half of the respondents at major public libraries- those with over $1 million a year in acquisitions funds-said that online ordering would be an important feature of any acquisitions system they might implement. At the same time, only 10 percent of the academic libraries considered online ordering an important capability. On the other hand, the special librarians interviewed--almost all of them in the corporate sector-considered online ordering more important than either of the other two groups, with two-thirds choosing it as a mandatory system element.
To determine whether or not these percentages had changed, we first checked with 10 of the libraries that had participated in the 1982 survey. Two had been using an automated acquisitions when contacted before; two more had implemented systems since then. Two public libraries which have automated systems are ordering online; two academic libraries with automated systems are not. The reason the public libraries are ordering online is that it makes it possible for them to get "best sellers" on the shelves in time to satisfy the demand stimulated by advertisements and reviews. In general, the responses from the 10 libraries resurveyed had changed very little from the previous survey.
We also contacted a number of large academic libraries not previously surveyed. Of the 22 institutions surveyed, 14 currently use an automated acquisitions system-10 use in-house systems and 4 the RLIN acquisitions subsystem. Two are installing the multifunction BLIS system and plan to implement its acquisitions module. Only 6 of the in-house systems are online systems and all but 3 of these are single function systems. (All are likely to be replaced in the next five years or so and in only one case is it certain that the new system will also be an in-house development.)
Only one of the libraries is currently using an online ordering system, Faxon Linx, for serials ordering. None of the libraries has experience with on-line ordering of monographs and other firm orders.
Of the libraries not currently using automation in acquisitions, only two definitely plan to do so within the next two years. One of them has a DataPhase integrated library system and will bring up the acquisitions module within the next year or so. The other has not selected a system. Six others believe the time frame for acquisitions automation will be five years or so because the library has other automation priorities, especially implementing an online patron access catalog.
Future online ordering is not a high priority with any of the libraries. Only four consider it likely that they will have it within the foreseeable future.
Decisions to implement online ordering would be dependent on cost and the number of vendors that could accept the transmissions. For ordering, jobbers are generally deemed to be more important than publishers. Several of the interviewees stressed, however, that while online ordering capability would be a selection criterion in procuring an acquisitions system, it would not be a mandatory specification element. The use of online ordering would be substantially dependent on whether the most attractive turnkey system or software package included the capability. Online ordering would also be more attractive if the major jobbers of a library could all accept online orders.
Several respondents said that a decision would have to be tied to benefit. If the online ordering system cost was substantially offset by savings in personnel, mailing, and supplies it would probably be adopted. However, speed alone would not be enough. The majority pointed out that the time saved by ordering online would be lost while the items waited for cataloging. Six respondents said that they now use the telephone and telegraph for rush orders and doubt that they could implement online ordering for the small number of rush orders they process at a cost lower than the aggregate annual cost of using the telephone and telegraph.
Six of the respondents volunteered that if vendors begin to accept online ordering, they should also consider online invoicing. They pointed to the fact that many book stores now have online ordering and invoicing service from their suppliers.
The responses reflect the librarians' current thinking which has not changed appreciably from the 1982 LTR survey. There is evidence to suggest however, that the importance of a feature increases when it becomes widely available. For example, the online printer port interface between OCLC and the CLSI system was deemed important by fewer than 20 percent of a group of librarians interviewed in 1979. Two years later-when printer port interfaces between bibliographic utilities and local library systems had become generally available-over 75 percent deemed them to be essential. The pattern was similar for call number access to circulation records- from low priority in 1978 to essential for over 90 percent of libraries in 1983. Only time will tell if wide availability of online ordering will have a similar effect.
