---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:09:14 -0600
From: Peter Picerno <ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu>
Subject: Re: Serials module to kardex (Rachel Hollis)

It is really interesting to me that someone has finally had the courage to
question some of the things that we've regarded as unimpeachibly(sp?)
sacred!! As one who, among other things, has to manage work-flow in
acquisitions and periodicals, I can see where such a question arises. We
are in the process of migrating to a new ILS and it was with a
slowly-dawning sense of horror that I realized that the new system would
eat up lots more time than our old one did for things like serials
check-in and ordering new materials. As I've reflected further on this,
I've also realized that sometimes even simple reference questions can take
much longer to answer if one goes the electronic route rather than the
print route. I'm not sure that anyone has made the claim that all of the
technologies which are part of our lives are more efficient and faster
than the 'old ways' but the trade-off is, I think as was pointed out, in
the convenience and usability of the ILS for the library patron who can
tell (if they know how to read a bib-record or a holdings-screen) whether
a journal is current, whether it is bound, unbound, microfilm, available
on an electronic full-text source, or whatever. While a Kardex may still
be faster, it doesn't begin to present the same information possibilities
to the user that an ILS does -- and herein lies the problem with which we
must grapple. The library director in question is right to ask the pointed
questions about what the ILS does for the library that the Kardex doesn't,
and hopefully the serials collection is cataloged enough so that the extra
time which the ILS eats up in labor for things like check-in have
dividends for the end user. Just like with electronic information sources,
which are pretty universally more expensive then their print counterparts,
I've never yet seen a technological solution which actually *saved* labor
in the short haul, but, again, the end-user is the main beneficiary of
technologies.