----------(1)
>From buddy.pennington@ROCKHURST.EDU Tue Mar 21 16:30:57 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:57:37 -0600
From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@ROCKHURST.EDU>
Subject: Re: Serials module to kardex (Peter Picerno)

Two points on the latest reponse to the ILS vs. Kardex discussion.

1.  There is always going to be an investment of labor in setting up and
training staff on a new system.  Part of the problem is that library staff
resist change and this leads to a selective reponse to the new system
(selective meaning that the staff focus on the negative aspects of the
system and fail to foresee the benefits of the system over the long-term).
There are ways to make this hurdle smaller when transitioning (better
training, etc.), but there will always be a hurdle to overcome when
switching.

2.  One of the biggest advantages is the reporting functions you can perform
for serials data that you cannot do with a Kardex system.  Unfortunately, as
has been pointed out in numerous books on library information systems, the
reporting cabalities are the most underused and since many librarians do not
use them, the vendors do not feel the pressure to innovate and improve the
reporting functions.  I think that librarians need to realize that the
serials modules are more than a Kardex system on the computer and push for
LIS vendors to improve the other aspects of the modules (reporting, binding,
claiming, subscriptions information, etc.).  It isn't that automation
necessarily reduces labor because it generally does not (just like the
argument that automation reduces paper is pretty much ridiculous).  But
automation opens up avenues that were simply unavailable before and it seems
that we are failing to seize upon those opportunities.

Buddy Pennington
Acquisitions/Serials Librarian
Rockhurst University Greenlease Library
buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu
#816-501-4143

-----Original 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.

----------(2)
>From dgoodman@Princeton.EDU Tue Mar 21 16:30:57 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:33:35 -0400
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Serials module to kardex (Peter Picerno)

The one thing a Kardex does do better is to present the maximum amount of
information in the minimum space. I have not seen a electronic display that
can do as well. I consider this an argument for better displays, not for
substituting or even retaining the manual file.

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian, and
Co-Chair, Electronic Journals Task Force
Princeton University Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu         http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/
phone: 609-258-3235            fax: 609-258-2627