BL RIC logo Annex 1


Retrospective conversion of library catalogues

in UK institutions of higher education: a quantitative analysis

undertaken on behalf of the Follett Information Group on IT

Russell Sweeney and Steven Prowse























University of Bath

March 1995


FIGIT Retrospective conversion survey 1994 : quantitative analysis

Notes.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1. The results show that as a consequence of retrospective conversion already undertaken

c.10,500,000 records have been converted in UK academic libraries to date.

2. For current cataloguing the mean unit cost for the creation/obtaining/adding of records to databases in the last full, financial year is calculated as £ 3.00 per record (Q. 16 x Q. 15).

3. The mean unit cost for the creation/ obtaining/ adding of records in current retrospective conversions is calculated as £ 1.83 per record (Q. 27 x Q. 26).

4. From the answers to Q. 32 it is calculated thatc. 28,000,000 records remain to be retrospectively converted in those libraries responding.

5. Of the 28,000,000 records some 4,000,000 are to be found in various Special collections in those libraries responding. The overwhelming majority of the material in Special collections is in the Humanities (Q34, Q39).

6. Some of the 28,000,000 records, including some of those in Special collections, will be retrospectively converted as a result of recent successful bids for HEFC Non-formula funding (Q. 37) 1 .

7. For most libraries past retrospective conversions have been funded from current expenditure (Q. 22), but a significant figure is recorded for special internal funding. The most usual source of external funding in the past has been Government employment schemes.

8. For current retrospective conversion programmes the great majority of libraries depend on current expenditure for their funding (Q. 28). There is a significant reduction in external funding for these programmes.

9. For definite future programmes of retrospective conversion, the expectation of funding from external 'sources' equals the figure given for funding from 'current expenditure' (Q. 37).

10. If the expectation of 'non-formula funding' is ignored, then the results show a decline in availability of finance from 'external' sources for retrospective conversion projects. At the same time there is less likelihood of funding such programmes from 'current expenditure'. (Q33, Q37)

11. 69% of HE libraries are members of a bibliographic utility (71% in the case of universities). 45% of members also obtain records from other external sources.

(Q13, Q14).

CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY

Background

The survey was conducted on behalf of the Follett Implementation Group on Information Technology (FIGIT). The objectives of the survey were to discover :

1. How much retrospective conversion of the records of research collections had been done.

2. What remains to be done.

3. What costs are involved in retrospective conversion.

4. What were/are the sources of funding.

Population surveyed

The survey was confined to Institutions of Higher Education in the United Kingdom. These included :

92 Universities

45 Colleges of Higher Education

110 Colleges of the Universities of Cambridge, London, and Oxford

19 Other Institutions of Higher Education

266

The 92 Universities and 45 Colleges of Higher Education are directly funded by HEFCs, but the objectives of the survey would not have been fulfilled without the inclusion of the other institutions listed above, which are not directly funded by HEFCs.

The names and addresses of the population to be surveyed were drawn from the Academic Institutions section of Directory of Libraries in the United Kingdom, 1994, published by The Library Association, and the Membership list of the HEFC Colleges Learning Resources Group, July 1994. The names of the institutions in these lists were confirmed by lists provided by HEFCs' Secretariat.

Methodology

The only feasible way of collecting the evidence required was by the use of a questionnaire, and work began on its design in September 1994. The resulting questionnaire went through several drafts in a very short time before it was ready for testing. The proposed questionnaire was sent to 14 libraries representing a cross-section of the various categories of institution on 11 October with a request for return by 26 October 1994. In order to test the suitability of the questionnaire at first hand, arrangements were made to visit 5 of the libraries participating in the pilot survey to discuss its completion.

As a result of this pilot survey the questionnaire was modified, most particularly in the questions relating to costs. These were found difficult to complete by several participants and required simplification. The final version of the questionnaire (See Appendix) was agreed by the FIGIT Monitoring Group during November and despatch was scheduled for 2 December 1994.

Each institution in the population was assigned a number and a questionnaire bearing that number was despatched, together with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the survey, 'notes' for completion of the questionnaire and a stamped addressed envelope for the return. It was thus possible to identify a particular questionnaire with an institution, and also identify those who had not returned a completed questionnaire by the requested date.

The questionnaire was despatched on the scheduled date with a request for return by 21 December 1994. By early January over 170 had been completed and returned and a reminder letter was despatched to those who had not yet returned the questionnaire on 6 January 1995. It had earlier been agreed that 10 of the largest Colleges of the University of London would be treated as separate universities for the purposes of this survey and their returned questionnaires were re-categorised to produce a total of 102 Universities. These colleges were Birkbeck, Goldsmith's, Imperial, Kings, London Business School, London School of Economics, Queen Mary, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African Studies, and School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Data preparation began in mid-January and preliminary results were produced for the 212 returned questionnaires received by 17 January. The final closing date for the return had been agreed as 31 January 1995 by which time 226 completed questionnaires had been returned from the 266 despatched, a response rate of 85 %. The final computer run was performed in early February using the SPSS package and the returned questionnaires were then despatched to Leeds for the manual analysis of those questions which could not be analysed by computer. Preliminary results from this analysis were presented to the FIGIT Monitoring Group at its meeting on 7 March and the full analysis was completed on 14 March 1995.

REFERENCES

1. Libraries review : non-formula funding of specialised research collections in the humanities : 1994-95 Non-recurring allocations, February 1995/ HEFC. HEFC Circular 5/95.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There was an excellent response rate in the survey and I would like to thank all of those librarians who took the trouble to complete and return the questionnaire. I would like to thank, especially, all of those librarians who participated in the pilot survey which tested the proposed questionnaire during October 1994. The libraries which were asked to participate in the pilot survey were Bolton Institute of Higher Education, Bretton Hall College, and the Universities of Bradford, Cambridge, Durham, Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan, Manchester (John Rylands), Newcastle, Salford, Sheffield, South Bank, Southampton, and York. In particular I would like to acknowledge the assistance given in the testing of the questionnaire by Ms. Betty Downing (Leeds Metropolitan University), Dr. Tom Graham (University of York), Mr. Norman Madill (Leeds University), Mr. Graham Roe (University of Sheffield), and Dr. Malcolm Stevenson (University of Bradford). Finally, my grateful thanks are due to Steven Prowse (Technical Support Officer, UKOLN, University of Bath) who wrote the programmes and undertook the computer analysis of the returns and to Ann Chapman (Research Officer, UKOLN) who assisted greatly in monitoring and recording the return of questionnaires.

Acknowledgement of the assistance of those named above does not absolve me from what follows and the responsibility for the content of this report is primarily my own.

Russell Sweeney

March 1995

Questionnaire - Analysis of returns

NB. Several of the questions in the survey allowed multiple responses. In those cases, any totals given show the number of responses, not the number of libraries responding. In other cases discrepancies in some of the figures are due to the failure of a respondent to provide an answer to a particular question. For example, in a few cases, respondents could not give the number of records added to the database (e.g. Q. 15) , or an estimate of the costs of adding those records (e.g. Q. 16).

The questionnaire was distributed to 265 libraries in the Higher Education sector. Of these, 226 were completed and returned, representing a response rate of 85 %.

1. To which of the following categories does your institution belong ?

Population surveyed
Questionnaires

returned
Response

rate %
Universities established before 1959 } 32 } }
Universities established 1960 - 1989 } 102 26 } 92 } 90 %
Universities established1990 - } 34 } }
Other Institutions in receipt of HEFC funding 44
37
 84 %
Other Academic institutions 119
97
 82 %
TOTAL 265
226
 85 %

Comments : 102 Universities were surveyed (10 of the largest Colleges of the University of London were treated as separate Universities)

2. How many titles do you estimate are contained in the stock of your library collection(s)?

No. titles Univ.'59 Univ.60 Univ.90 HEFC Other Total
< 350,000 5 13 28 29 93 168
> 350,000 4 6 2 3 0 15
> 500,000 8 5 3 0 0 16
> 750,000 5 2 0 1 0 8
> 1,000,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
> 1,250,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
> 1,500,000 1 0 0 1 0 2
> 1,750,000 1 0 0 2 1 4
> 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 2,500,000 1 0 1 0 0 2
> 3,000,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
> 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 5,000,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
TOTAL 32 26 34 36 94 222

Comments : Of the 92 Universities who responded,

46 have less than 350,000 titles

12 have 350,000 - 500,000 titles

16 have 500,000 - 750,000 titles

7 have 750,000 - 1,000,000 titles

9 have 1,000,000 - 4,000,000 titles

2 have more than 5,000,000 titles

3. Do you hold machine readable records for any of your stock?

All Universities (100 %), and all except 1 HEFC college (97 %) , who responded, have

machine readable records.

4. How many records in machine readable form do you hold for those titles contained in the stock of your library collections ?

No. records Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 350,000 11 17 30 31 76 165
> 350,000 9 4 2 0 0 15
> 500,000 7 4 1 0 0 12
> 750,000 3 1 0 1 0 5
> 1,000,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
> 1,250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 1,500,000 0 0 0 1 0 1
> 1,750,000 0 0 0 1 1 2
> 2,000,000 0 0 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 32 26 34 34 77 203

Comments : 94 % of all libraries have less than 750,000 machine readable records in their

databases.

58 University libraries have less than 350,000 machine readable records

15 " " have 350,000 - 500,000 " "

12 " " have 500,000 - 750,000 " "

Q. 4 x Q. 2 This cross tabulation shows the number of titles in the collection and the number

of machine readable records held.

No. of Libraries with no. of records in machine readable form

Titles

in 000's Records in 000's

<

350
>

350
>

500
>

750
>

1m
>

1.25m
>

1.5m
>

1.75m
 >

2m

>

2.5m
>

3m
>

4m
>

5m
Total
< 350 147 2 149
> 350 12 4 16
> 500 5 3 7 1 16
> 750 1 2 2 3 8
> 1m 2 2
> 1.25m 1 1
> 1.5m 1 1 2
> 1.75m 1 1 2 4
> 2.5m 1 1 2
> 3m 1 1 2
> 5m 2 0 2
TOTAL 166 15 12 5 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0






Q. 6 What forms of non-machine readable catalogues are still in use?


Guardbook 15
Printed 26
Card 155
Sheaf 20
Microform 21
Other 5
None 47



10. In what format are your machine readable records?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
UKMARC 25 11 29 13 45 123
USMARC 2 1 1 2 13 19
In-house 2 6 2 16 9 35
Other external 2 6 1 5 5 19
MARC+in-house 1 0 1 0 3 5
MARC+external 0 1 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 32 25 34 36 75 202

Comments : Although this was a single response question, 10 respondents treated it as a multiple response question, indicating that they used a combination of different formats.

For those libraries using other external formats

7 use BLCMP MARC 1 uses BS 1629

2 " BOOKSHELF 1 " DMARC

1 " CATS 1 " LIBRARYPAC

1 " DYNIX 1 " HERITAGE

1 " OCLC MARC

1 ORACLE

11. What level of bibliographic description do you provide in your machine readable records ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
AACR2 Level 1 3 5 4 9 8 29
AACR2 Level 1+ 1 6 6 1 8 22
AACR2 Level 2 15 11 7 10 29 72
AACR2 Level 3 2 0 2 3 3 10
MARC Manual 3 0 4 1 3 11
Other recommended levels 1 0 5 0 5 11
In-house level 4 4 1 9 10 28
AACR+in-house 2 0 1 1 1 5
AACR Combination 0 0 0 0 3 3
AACR+external 0 0 1 0 3 4
External+in-house 0 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 31 26 31 34 74 196

If Other recommended levels or in-house levels,

please specify what this is and the data elements included.

6 specified BLCMP MARC 1 specified INMAGIC

6 " AACR2 Level 2 + or - 1 " HERITAGE

1 " ORACLE + In house 1 " BOOKSHELF

1 " " A little lower than AACR2 Level 1"

Comments : Although this was a single response question, 13 respondents treated it as a multiple response question, indicating that they used different levels of bibliographic description for different material.

12. Do you obtain machine readable records from any external sources?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 30 16 28 14 54 142
No 2 10 6 22 27 67
TOTAL 32 26 34 36 81 209

Comments : Of the 209 libraries who responded, 142 (68 %) obtain records from external sources.

Of the 92 University libraries, 74 (80 %) do so.

13. Are you a member of a bibliographic utility ?

Of the 169 libraries who responded, 116 (69 %) were members of a utility.

Of the 80 University libraries, 57 (71 %) were members.

30 are members of BLCMP

23 " SLS

8 " OCLC

15 " CURL

2 " RLG

1 is a " RLIN

Comments : Several of those recording membership of some of the above were Colleges of the Universities of Cambridge, London, or Oxford, having access to those utilities via their parent Universities.

14. Do you obtain machine readable records from any external source, other than via the utility

of which you may be a member ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 15 7 6 2 22 52
No 14 13 23 15 45 110
TOTAL 29 20 29 17 67 162

For those libraries answering "yes",

20 obtain records from OCLC (many via SLS or CURL)

10 " CURL

7 " SLS (usually as a source for OCLC)

5 " BNB

2 " BL or BLAISE

2 " RLIN

1 " Global Books in Print

1 " LC

1 " BOOKBANK

15. How many records have you added to your database in the last full financial year ?

No. records Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 2,500 0 1 0 7 56 64
< 5,000 1 3 1 7 10 22
< 10,000 5 8 8 15 7 43
< 15,000 7 5 14 4 1 31
< 20,000 9 6 7 1 1 24
< 25,000 4 1 1 0 0 6
< 30,000 2 1 0 0 0 3
< 35,000 1 0 3 0 1 5
< 40,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 45,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 75,000 1 0 0 1 0 2
< 100,000 1 0 0 1 0 2
100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 32 25 34 36 76 203

16. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding records for/to your database over the last full financial year ?

Cost in £'s Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 2,500 0 0 2 5 34 41
< 5,000 0 1 2 5 10 18
< 10,000 0 1 1 6 11 19
< 15,000 1 1 2 4 5 13
< 20,000 0 3 3 5 3 14
< 25,000 1 3 2 1 1 8
< 30,000 2 1 0 2 3 8
< 35,000 0 0 0 2 4 6
< 40,000 1 1 1 0 0 3
< 45,000 0 0 3 1 0 4
< 50,000 4 3 3 0 0 10
< 75,000 6 1 6 0 2 15
< 100,000 3 6 2 0 1 12
100,000 12 2 3 0 0 17
TOTAL 30 23 30 31 74 188

Q.15 x Q.16 This cross tabulation shows the number of records added in the last year with the

costs of creating/ obtaining/ adding those records.

No. libraries No. of records Cost in £ 's Cost per record
1 100,000 2,500 0.025
1 20,000 2,500 0.125
1 15,000 2,500 0.16
1 20,000 5,000 0.25
2 10,000 2,500 0.25
1 15,000 5,000 0.33
1 75,000 30,000 0.40
4 5,000 2,500 0.50
2 10,000 5,000 0.50
1 35,000 20,000 0.57
1 30,000 25,000 0.70
2 20,000 15,000 0.75
31 2,500 2,500 1.00
1 5,000 5,000 1.00
6 10,000 10,000 1.00
1 15,000 15,000 1.00
1 20,000 20,000 1.00
1 35,000 35,000 1.00
1 20,000 25,000 1.25
1 15,000 20,000 1.33
1 75,000 100,000 1.33
4 10,000 15,000 1.50
2 15,000 25,000 1.66
14 2,500 5,000 2.00
3 5,000 10,000 2.00
5 10,000 20,000 2.00
3 15,000 30,000 2.00
1 20,000 40,000 2.00
1 25,000 50,000 2.00
2 20,000 45,000 2.25
2 15,000 35,000 2.33
2 10,000 25,000 2.50
1 20,000 50,000 2.50
1 30,000 75,000 2.50
2 35,000 100,000 2.85
2 5,000 15,000 3.00
2 10,000 30,000 3.00
2 15,000 45,000 3.00
1 25,000 75,000 3.00
4 15,000 45,000 3.33
1 30,000 100,000 3.33
2 10,000 35,000 3.50
3 20,000 75,000 3.75

Q.15 x Q.16 (Contd,...)

No. libraries No. of records Cost in £ 's Cost per record
10 2,500 10,000 4.00
4 5,000 20,000 4.00
2 10,000 2,500 4.00
1 25,000 100,000 4.00
2 5,000 25,000 5.00
4 10,000 50,000 5.00
3 15,000 75,000 5.00
2 20,000 100,000 5.00
2 20,000 100,000 5.00
4 2,500 15,000 6.00
1 5,000 30,000 6.00
4 15,000 100,000 6.66
5 15,000 100,000 6.66
6 10,000 75,000 7.50
2 2,500 20,000 8.00
1 5,000 50,000 10.00
2 10,000 100,000 10.00
2 10,000 100,000 10.00
1 2,500 30,000 12.00
1 2,500 35,000 14.00

Comments : Total Unit costs /Total libraries = Mean Unit cost

550.49/ 181 = £ 3.00

17. What is/are the source(s) of funding for your programme of producing machine readable records for your current intake ? (More than one response may be made)

From the 223 responses to this question, 202 respondents (91%) indicated that their sources of funding were from current expenditure; only 15 respondents were able to obtain special internal funding, and only 5 were able to obtain external funding.




















Qu. 15 x Qu 16

Costs of creating / obtaining / adding records for 'current intake'
to the database in the last full financial year




Total unit costs/Total libraries = Mean Unit Cost

550.49/181 = £3.00



Q17 x Q. 16 This cross tabulation shows the estimated costs for creating/obtaining/adding records for current intake and the sources of funding. (NB For some libraries there were multiple sources of funding for a programme.)

Costs in £ 's Current exp. Special

internal

 External Total
< 2,500 38 5 0 43
< 5,000 18 3 1 22
< 10,000 19 1 0 20
< 15,000 13 0 0 13
< 20,000 14 0 0 14
< 25,000 8 0 0 8
< 30,000 8 0 0 8
< 35,000 6 1 0 7
< 40,000 3 0 0 3
< 45,000 4 0 0 4
< 50,000 10 1 0 11
< 75,000 14 1 1 16
< 100,000 12 0 0 12
100,000 18 2 1 21
TOTAL 185 14 3 202

18. Other than machine readable records being created for your current intake, have you undertaken any retrospective conversion of manual records to machine readable form?

Of the 212 libraries who responded, 174 (82 %) have undertaken some retrospective conversion. Of the 89 University libraries, 81 (91 %) have done so.

19. Have you completed (or suspended) any retrospective conversion of manual records to machine readable form for any sections of your stock?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 25 20 29 25 42 141
No 4 4 3 6 28 45
TOTAL 29 24 32 31 70 186

20. For this/these past, completed (or suspended), retrospective conversion(s), how many records

were added to your database ?

No. records Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 5,000 1 0 0 4 11 16
< 10,000 1 0 1 0 2 4
< 15,000 2 1 0 0 3 6
< 20,000 1 1 0 2 6 10
< 25,000 1 1 1 1 2 6
< 30,000 0 0 0 1 4 5
< 35,000 1 1 0 2 3 7
< 40,000 1 1 0 1 2 5
< 50,000 2 1 0 6 5 14
< 75,000 4 4 3 2 4 17
< 100,000 1 4 7 5 1 18
< 125,000 0 0 3 1 0 4
< 150,000 1 1 4 2 0 8
< 175,000 2 0 2 0 0 4
< 200,000 1 1 1 0 0 3
200,000 6 4 4 0 0 14
TOTAL 25 20 26 27 43 141

Comments : Taking a figure at a mid-point between the number of records added to the database in each library, the total number of records added to library databases in these past retrospective conversions is

c. 10,000,000 records

21. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding these records for/to your database ?

Cost in £'s Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 5,000 1 0 0 6 13 20
< 10,000 0 0 1 4 8 13
< 15,000 0 2 2 2 6 12
< 20,000 0 0 1 3 2 6
< 25,000 0 1 0 1 3 5
< 30,000 0 0 0 2 3 5
< 35,000 0 0 1 0 0 1
< 40,000 2 1 1 1 0 5
< 50,000 3 1 0 1 1 6
< 75,000 4 1 1 1 1 8
< 100,000 2 2 2 1 0 7
< 125,000 2 2 2 0 0 6
< 150,000 1 0 1 0 2 4
< 175,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
< 200,000 1 1 3 0 0 5
200,000 7 2 3 0 1 13
TOTAL 25 13 18 22 40 118

22. What was/were the source(s) of funding for these past, completed, (or suspended) retrospective conversions ? (More than one response may be made)

Sources Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Current exp. 17 13 22 11 27 90
Special internal 15 8 16 17 23 79
External 11 5 6 4 3 29

Comments : For those specifiying external funding

17 obtained external funding from YTS, MSC, or other Govt. Employment 3 " BL grants

1 " Alumni Foundation

1 " County Council

1 " European Union

1 " UGC restructuring

1 " Scottish Office

1 " Scottish Ed. Dept.

Q.22 x Q. 21 This cross tabulation shows the estimated costs for past retrospective conversion and the sources of funding. (NB For some libraries there were multiple sources of funding for a programme.)

Costs in £ 's Current exp. Special

internal

 External Total
< 5,000 14 7 2 23
< 10,000 5 9 1 15
< 15,000 7 6 0 13
< 20,000 3 4 0 7
< 25,000 1 4 1 6
< 30,000 2 4 0 6
< 35,000 1 0 0 1
< 40,000 2 4 0 6
< 50,000 5 4 1 10
< 75,000 4 3 6 13
< 100,000 7 3 1 11
< 125,000 1 5 1 7
< 150,000 2 2 1 5
< 175,000 3 0 1 4
< 200,000 4 5 1 10
200,000 10 8 6 24
TOTAL 71 68 22 161

23. What categories of material did these past completed, or suspended, retrospective conversions

include? (More than one response may be made)

Category Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Complete collection 10 12 16 16 17 71
Cut-off date 5 1 3 4 6 19
Formats 5 7 5 5 3 25
Amount of use 10 1 6 6 12 35
Special collec. 5 4 1 3 2 15
Subject 8 4 6 5 9 32
Language 0 0 0 1 2 3
Location 9 3 9 4 11 36
Other 2 1 2 1 7 13

24 In what year(s) was/were this/these retrospective conversion(s) completed or suspended ? (More than one response may be made)

Responding libraries indicated 235 separate retrospective conversion programmes. Of these, 90 were completed (or suspended) before 1989 and 145 completed (or suspended) between

1990 - 1995.

25 Do you have a programme of retrospective conversion running at the present time ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 25 12 15 18 36 106
No 4 12 16 15 34 81
TOTAL 29 24 31 33 70 187

Comments : Of the 187 libraries who responded, 106 (57 %) have a programme running at the present time. Of the 84 University libraries, 52 (62 %) have such a programme.

26. For these bibliographic records being retrospectively converted at present, how many records

have been added to your database, in the last full financial year ?

No. records Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 5,000 11 9 13 15 31 79
< 10,000 4 1 1 1 2 9
< 15,000 6 0 0 1 2 9
< 20,000 0 0 1 1 1 3
< 25,000 0 1 0 0 1 2
< 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 50,000 1 1 0 0 0 2
< 75,000 1 0 0 1 0 2
< 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 125,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 23 12 15 19 37 106

Comments : Taking a figure at a mid-point between the number of records added to the database in each library, the total number of records added to library databases in these current retrospective conversions is

c. 690,000 records

27. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding these records for/to your

database, in the last full financial year ?

Cost in £'s Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 5,000 5 6 5 10 27 53
< 10,000 1 1 3 3 3 11
< 15,000 1 0 5 0 4 10
< 20,000 2 0 1 0 0 3
< 25,000 3 0 0 0 0 3
< 30,000 3 0 0 0 0 3
< 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 40,000 4 2 1 1 0 8
< 50,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 75,000 2 1 0 1 1 5
< 100,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 125,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 175,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 24 10 15 15 35 99



Q. 26 x Q. 27 This cross tabulation shows the number of records added in the current retrospective

conversion programme with the costs of creating/obtaining/adding those records for/ to the database in the last year.

No. libraries No. of records Cost in £ 's Cost per record
1 25,000 5,000 0.20
1 20,000 5,000 0.25
1 10,000 5,000 0.50
1 20,000 15,000 0.75
1 50,000 40,000 0.80
49 5,000 5,000 1.00
1 10,000 10,000 1.00
2 15,000 15,000 1.00
1 75,000 75,000 1.00
1 15,000 20,000 1.33
1 10,000 15,000 1.50
1 50,000 75,000 1.50
1 75,000 125,000 1.66
10 5,000 10,000 2.00
1 15,000 30,000 2.00
1 20,000 40,000 2.00
1 10,000 25,000 2.50
2 15,000 40,000 2.66
6 5,000 15,000 3.00
1 10,000 30,000 3.00
1 25,000 75,000 3.00

Q.26 x Q.27 (Contd.)


No. libraries
No. of records
Cost in £ 's
Cost per record
2 5,000 20,000 4.00
3 10,000 40,000 4.00
2 5,000 25,000 5.00
1 10,000 50,000 5.00
2 15,000 75,000 5.00
1 5,000 30,000 6.00
1 5,000 40,000 8.00

Comments : Total Unit costs /Total libraries = Mean Unit cost

176.25/97 = £ 1.83

28. What is/are the source(s) of funding for this/these retrospective conversion(s) ? (More than one response may be made)

Sources Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Current exp. 22 11 13 15 30 91
Special internal 6 2 3 7 12 30
External 4 1 0 0 1 6

Comments : For those specifying external funding

3 obtained external funding from BL grants

1 " European Union

1 " NERC British Antarctic Survey

Q.28 x Q. 27 This cross tabulation shows the estimated costs for present retrospective conversion

and the sources of funding. (NB For some libraries there were multiple sources of funding for a programme.)

Cost in £'s Current exp. Special

internal

 External Total
< 5,000 48 8 0 56
< 10,000 9 2 0 11
< 15,000 6 5 1 12
< 20,000 2 2 0 4
< 25,000 3 1 2 6
< 30,000 3 1 0 4
< 35,000 0 0 0 0
< 40,000 8 2 2 12
< 50,000 1 0 0 1
< 75,000 3 2 1 6
< 100,000 0 1 0 1
< 125,000 0 1 0 1
< 150,000 0 0 0 0
< 175,000 0 0 0 0
< 200,000 0 0 0 0
200,000 1 1 0 2
TOTAL 84 26 6 116




Qu. 26 x Qu. 27

Costs of creating / obtaining /adding present retrospective conversion records

to/ for the database in the last full financial year





Total unit costs/Total libraries = Mean Unit Cost

176.25 / 97 = £1.83

29. What categories of material does this/these retrospective conversion(s) include ? (More than one response may be made)

Category Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Complete collection 9 3 1 11 16 40
Cut-off date 4 0 1 3 4 12
Formats 5 4 7 3 2 21
Amount of use 10 3 3 8 9 33
Special collections 8 4 2 0 11 25
Subject 4 4 2 4 11 25
Language 0 0 0 1 1 2
Location 5 2 2 1 11 21
Other 6 0 2 0 2 10

30. How long do you expect this/these present retrospective conversion(s) to take ?

20 libraries expected completion within 1 year; 17 within 2 years; 26 within 3 years; and

41 expected completion to take longer than 3 years. Of the latter the majority specified longer than 5 years, with 11 libraries indicating more than 10 years.

31. Do you have any bibliographic records that have not been converted to machine readable form ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 28 16 21 24 76 165
No 4 7 12 13 10 46
TOTAL 32 23 33 37 86 211

32. What is your best estimate of the number of records that remain to be converted to machine

readable form ?

No. records Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
< 10,000 1 5 11 10 24 51
< 20,000 0 2 2 7 9 20
< 30,000 0 1 3 4 9 17
< 40,000 1 0 3 0 7 11
< 50,000 2 1 2 0 4 9
< 75,000 1 1 0 1 7 10
< 100,000 2 3 1 1 8 15
< 200,000 5 4 0 0 2 11
< 300,000 2 2 0 0 3 7
< 400,000 5 0 0 0 2 7
< 500,000 2 0 0 0 0 2
< 750,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
< 2,000,000 4 0 0 0 0 4
< 3,000,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 4,000,000 1 0 0 0 0 1
< 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 28 19 22 23 75 167

Comments : Taking a figure at a mid-point between the number of records remaining in each library, the total number of records remaining to be converted to machine readable form in all the libraries responding is

c. 28,000,000 records

Q. 32 x Q. 2 This cross tabulation shows the number of titles in the collection (Q.2) with the titles

whose records remain to be converted to machine readable form (Q. 32).

Titles No. of Libraries with no. of records remaining to be converted.

000's Records in 000's

<

10
<

20
<

30
<

40
<

50
<

75
<

100
<

200
<

300
<

400
<

500
<

750
<

2m
<

3m
<

4m
Total
< 350 48 16 17 10 6 9 9 4 3 1 123
> 350 2 2 1 1 2 5 13
> 500 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 12
> 750 1 2 3 6
> 1m 1 1 2
> 1.25m 0
> 1.5m 1 1
> 1.75m 1 1
> 2m 0
> 2.5m 1 1
> 3m 1 1 2
> 4m 0
> 5m 1 1 2
TOTAL 51 19 17 11 9 10 15 10 7 5 2 1 4 1 1 163

Q. 32 x Q. 4 This cross tabulation shows the number of records in the database (Q. 4) with the

number of titles whose records remain to be converted to machine readable form

(Q. 32).

Records No. of Libraries with no. of records remaining to be converted.

held

000's Records in 000's

<

10
<

20
<

30
<

40
<

50
<

75
<

100
<

200
<

300
<

400
<

500
<

750
<

2m
<

3m
<

4m
Total
< 350 48 16 15 8 7 9 10 9 2 3 127
> 350 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 14
> 500 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9
> 750 1 1 1 3
> 1m 1 1
> 1.75m 1 1
> 2m 1 1
TOTAL 50 18 15 9 8 9 13 11 6 7 2 1 2 4 1 156



33. Have you any definite programme for the retrospective conversion of some of your records,

commencing within the next 2 years ? (This does not include any present programme of

retrospective conversion covered in previous questions ).

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 16 9 6 7 19 57
No 12 11 18 16 63 120
TOTAL 28 20 24 23 82 177

Q. 33 x Q. 32 This cross tabulation shows the number of records remaining to be converted with the answers to the question as to whether or not there is a definite programme for future retrospective conversion.

Definite retrospective conversion programme

No. records

remaining
 No response Yes No Total
< 10,000 12 39 51
< 20,000 1 5 14 20
< 30,000 1 3 13 17
< 40,000 5 6 11
< 50,000 3 6 9
< 75,000 2 3 5 10
< 100,000 6 9 15
< 200,000 4 7 11
< 300,000 4 3 7
< 400,000 4 3 7
< 500,000 2 2
< 750,000 1 1
< 1,000.000
< 2,000,000 4 4
< 3,000,000 1 1
< 4,000,000 1 1
< 5,000,000
TOTAL 4 56 107 167

34. What categories of items will be included in this retrospective conversion ?(More than one

response may be made)

Category Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Complete collection 3 1 2 1 9 16
Cut-off date 3 2 0 0 5 10
Formats 2 2 1 2 3 10
Amount of use 2 1 0 0 0 3
Special collec. 9 3 3 1 9 25
Subject 5 2 0 1 1 9
Language 2 0 0 0 0 2
Location 3 2 1 1 5 12
Other 0 3 0 1 0 4

Comments : For those libraries who specified material in Special collections

966,800 titles were in General, Miscellaneous, Unspecified, including

early printed or rare books

571,050 " Humanities

69,800 " Social Sciences

6,200 " Medicine

4,500 " Technology

Total c 1,700,000 titles

It is evident from the answers to Q. 37 that for many of the collections above, the libraries have already made bids for HEFC Non-formula funding.

35. On what date do you expect to commence this programme ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Jan-Jun 1995 10 6 4 2 9 31
July-Dec 1995 3 0 1 2 7 13
Jan-Jun 1996 0 1 1 2 1 5
July-Dec 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jan-Jun 1997 0 1 0 0 0 1
Not yet known 3 0 0 1 5 9

37. What sources of funding are you expecting for this retrospective conversion ? (More than one response may be made)

Sources Univ.'59 Univ.60 Univ.90 HEFC Other Total
Current exp. 8 8 4 4 0 24
Special internal 3 3 1 3 0 10
External 10 3 3 0 8 24

Comments : For the 24 libraries specifying external funding, 20 were anticipating HEFC

Non-formula funding.

38. Have you any Special collections whose records have not been converted to machine readable form, and are not included in any programmes of retrospective conversion covered in Qus. 26-37 above ?

Univ.'59 Univ.'60 Univ.'90 HEFC Other Total
Yes 13 8 7 8 41 77
No 9 11 14 13 33 80
TOTAL 22 19 21 21 74 157

39. For those who specified material in Special collections in Q. 38

813,635 titles were in: General, Miscellaneous, Unspecified.

401,100 " Early printed or rare books

4,000 " Humanities in general

39,000 " Philosophy

14,000 " Psychic research

124,800 " Religion

2,000 " Arts

44,550 " Music

31,541 " Theatre

174,650 " Literature

344,100 " Geography, History, Area Studies

160,850 " Social Sciences

24,000 " Science

31,000 " Medicine

20,000 " Technology

Total c 2,300,000 titles

Q. 33 x Q25 x Q19 x Q. 3 These cross tabulations reveal the activities of libraries in retrospective conversion of their records. The first table shows the number of libraries in each category who answered YES to each question. They are not necessarily the same libraries in each area.

Current intake

Q. 3

Past retrospective

conversions

Q. 19

Present retrospective

conversions

Q. 25

Future retrospective

conversions

Q. 33

Universities created before 1959 31 25 25 16
Universities created 1960-1989 26 20 12 9
Universities created after 1990 34 29 15 6
HEFC Colleges of HE 35 25 18 7
Other Academic Institutions 78 42 36 19
TOTAL 204 141 106 57

The second table shows the number of YESs recorded by libraries to the four questions, i.e. those listed in column FOUR YESs indicate activity in all four areas : creation for current intake, past retrospective conversions, present retrospective conversions, future retrospective conversions.

NO YESs ONE

YES

TWO YESs THREE YESs FOUR YESs
Universities created before 1959 0 1 8 12 11
Universities created 1960-1989 0 2 11 9 4
Universities created after 1990 0 2 17 12 3
HEFC Colleges of HE 2 2 19 11 3
Other Academic Institutions 17 16 39 23 3
TOTAL 19 23 94 67 24

ANNEXE 1 - Appendix

FIGIT Retrospective conversion survey

on behalf of the Follett Implementation Group on IT (FIGIT)

Questionnaire

Notes for completion

The questionnaire is structured in the following sections :

Questions relating to general matters (Qu. 1 - 6)

Questions relating to current intake (Qu. 7 - 17)

Questions relating to retrospective conversions completed (or suspended) (Qu. 19 - 24)

Questions relating to retrospective conversions being presently undertaken (Qu. 26 - 30)

Questions relating to any future programmes of retrospective conversions (Qu. 33 - 37)

Within each of these sections many of the questions are similar. It would be advisable to examine all of these sections before commencing your responses to any of the questions.

For the purposes of this survey some of the terms used in the questionnaire are defined as follows :

Stock. Stock should include all materials except: archival materials, mss, illustrations, photographs, slides.

Title. A named bibliographic entity which is catalogued as a unit, forming the basis for a single catalogue record. A title will be represented in a collection by one or more title occurrences, called Items.

Microform catalogues (Qu.5). It is recognised that in the past many microform catalogues were produced from machine readable records. They should not be recorded in the answer to this question.

Special collections (Qu. 9 and others). These are defined as any collection of material forming a discrete collection, separate from the remainder of the stock and not incorporated into the main sequences of the stock. It does not include collections in a given format or on a specific subject, unless they fulfill the criteria given in the previous sentence. Examples of such collections are The Wallis collection, The Bamburgh Library

Database. Although database is used in the singular, it embraces multiple databases which may hold the records of the stock of the library collection(s)

Costs.It is recognised that there will be many variables included in any estimate of costs. It is expected that estimated costs will include staff salaries, costs of obtaining records from external sources, costs for amending such records, costs involved in the creation of records. The following should be excluded : accommodation costs, equipment, lighting, heating, and other such costs. Where costs for a full, financial year are not available( e.g. Qu. 26), an estimate of what they are likely to be should be given.

Retrospective conversion. Questions relating to retrospective conversion (Qus. 19-37) are couched in a manner which pre-supposes that such conversions are programmes separate from current intake. For those libraries who are running retrospective conversion programmes in conjunction with current intake, those figures given in answer to Qus. 15 & 16 should be limited to current intake. It is hoped that it will be possible for them to estimate figures for any retrospective conversion(s) in Qu. 26 & 27.

FIGIT Retrospective conversion survey

Questionnaire.

Please circle the number to the right of the appropriate response. Please ignore numbers in parenthesis which are provided for computer analysis.

The following questions 1 - 6 deal with general matters

about your library collections

1. To which of the following categories does your institution belong ?

Universities established before 1959 1

Universities established 1960 - 1989 2

Universities established1990 - 3 (5)

Other Institutions in receipt of HEFC funding 4

Other Academic institutions 5

2. How many titles are do you estimate are contained

in the stock of your library collection(s)?

< 350,000 1 > 1,750,000 8

> 350,000 2 > 2,000,000 9

> 500,000 3 > 2,500,000 10

> 750,000 4 > 3,000,000 11 (7-8)

> 1,000,000 5 > 4,000,000 12

> 1,250,000 6 > 5,000,000 13

> 1,500,000 7


3. Do you hold machine readable records for any of your stock?

Yes 1 Go to 4 (10)

No 2 Go to 6

4. How many records in machine readable form do you hold for those

titles contained in the stock of your library collections ?

< 350,000 1 > 1,750,000 8

> 350,000 2 > 2,000,000 9

> 500,000 3 > 2,500,000 10

> 750,000 4 > 3,000,000 11 (12-13)

> 1,000,000 5 > 4,000,000 12

> 1,250,000 6 > 5,000,000 13

> 1,500,000 7

5. What were the forms of your non-machine readable

catalogues ? (More than one response may be made)

Guardbook 1

Printed 2

Card 3 (15-20)

Sheaf 4

Microform 5

Other 6

6. What forms of non-machine readable catalogues

are still in use ? (More than one response may be made)

Guardbook 1

Printed 2

Card 3 (22-28)

Sheaf 4

Microform 5

Other 6

None 7

The following questions 7 - 17 deal with current intake

7. In what year did you commence the production of records in machine

readable form for current intake ?

Pre - 1970 1

1970-1975 2

1976-1980 3 (30)

1981-1985 4

1986-1989 5

1990 - 6

8. When you commenced the production of machine readable

records for current intake, were any categories of stock

given priority ?

Yes 1 Go to 9

(32)

No 2 Go to 10

9. Which categories of stock were given priority ?

(More than one response may be made)

Titles using a specified cut-off date,
e.g. acquisition date, publication date ? 1

Titles in specific formats,

e,g. monographs, serials, maps ? 2

(please specify the formats)

Amount of use 3 34-41)

Special collections (see Notes for completion) 4

Titles in a specified subject 5

Titles in a specified language 6

Physical location of titles 7

Other categories (please specify) 8




10. In what format are your machine readable records?

UKMARC 1

USMARC 2

In-house format 3 (47)

Other external (please specify) 4


11. What level of bibliographic description do you provide in your

machine readable records ?

AACR2 Level 1 1

AACR2 Level 1 + 2

AACR2 Level 2 3

AACR2 Level 3 4 (49)

Recommended standard for bibliographic records 5

(UKMARC Manual, Appendix N)

Other recommended levels 6

In-house levels 7

If Other recommended levels or in-house levels,

please specify what this is and the data elements included.

12. Do you obtain machine readable records from any external

sources?

Yes 1 Go to 13

(51)

No 2 Go to 15

13. Are you a member of a bibliographic utility ?

Yes 1

(53)

No 2

If YES, please specify the utility.

14. Do you obtain machine readable records from any

external source, other than via the utility

of which you may be a member ?

Yes 1

(55)

No 2

If YES, please specify the source(s)


15. How many records have you added to your database

in the last full financial year ?

< 2,500 1 < 35,000 8

< 5,000 2 < 40,000 9

< 10,000 3 < 45,000 10

< 15,000 4 < 50,000 11

< 20,000 5 < 75,000 12 (57-58)

< 25,000 6 < 100,000 13

< 30,000 7 100,000 14

16. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding

records for/to your database over the last full financial year ?

£'s

< 2,500 1 < 35,000 8

< 5,000 2 < 40,000 9

< 10,000 3 < 45,000 10

< 15,000 4 < 50,000 11

< 20,000 5 < 75,000 12 (60-61)

< 25,000 6 < 100,000 13

< 30,000 7 100,000 14

17. What is/are the source(s) of funding for your programme of

producing machine readable records for your current intake ?

(More than one response may be made)

Library current expenditure 1

Special internal funding 2 (63-65)

External funding 3

(please specify source)

18. Other than machine readable records being created for your

current intake, have you undertaken any retrospective conversion

of manual records to machine readable form?

Yes 1 Go to 19

(67)

No 2 Go to 31

The following questions 19 - 24 deal with retrospective conversions

completed (or suspended)

19. Have you completed (or suspended) any retrospective conversion

of manual records to machine readable form for

any sections of your stock?

Yes 1 Go to 20

(69)

No 2 Go to 25

20 For this/these past, completed (or suspended), retrospective

conversion(s), how many records were added to your database ?

< 5,000 1 < 50,000 9

< 10,000 2 < 75,000 10

< 15,000 3 < 100,000 11

< 20,000 4 < 125,000 12 (71-72)

< 25,000 5 < 150,000 13

< 30,000 6 < 175,000 14

< 35,000 7 < 200,000 15

< 40,000 8 200,000 16

21. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding

these records for/to your database ?

£'s

< 5,000 1 < 50,000 9

< 10,000 2 < 75,000 10

< 15,000 3 < 100,000 11

< 20,000 4 < 125,000 12 (74-75)

< 25,000 5 < 150,000 13

< 30,000 6 < 175,000 14

< 35,000 7 < 200,000 15

< 40,000 8 200,000 16

22. What was/were the source(s) of funding for these past, completed,

(or suspended) retrospective conversions ?

(More than one response may be made)

Library current expenditure 1

Special internal funding 2 (77-79)

External funding 3

(please specify source)

23. What categories of material did these past completed, or suspended,

retrospective conversions include?

(More than one response may be made)

Complete collection 1

Titles using a specified cut-off date,
e.g. acquisition date, publication date ? 2

Titles in specific formats,

e,g. monographs, serials, maps ? 3

(please specify the formats)

Amount of use 4 (81-89)

Special collections (see Notes for completion) 5

Titles in a specified subject 6

Titles in a specified language 7

Physical location of titles 8

Other categories (please specify) 9


24 In what year(s) was/were this/these retrospective conversion(s) completed

or suspended ? (More than one response may be made)

before 1980 1 1987 8

1981 2 1988 9

1982 3 1990 10 (91-103)

1983 4 1991 11

1984 5 1992 12

1985 6 1993 13

1986 7

25 Do you have a programme of retrospective conversion

running at the present time ?

Yes 1 Go to 26

(104)

No2 Go to 31

The following questions 26 - 30 deal with bibliographic records

being retrospectively converted at present

26. For these bibliographic records being retrospectively converted

at present, how many records have been added to your database,

in the last full financial year ?

< 5,000 1 < 50,000 9

< 10,000 2 < 75,000 10

< 15,000 3 < 100,000 11

< 20,000 4 < 125,000 12 (106-107)

< 25,000 5 < 150,000 13

< 30,000 6 < 175,000 14

< 35,000 7 < 200,000 15

< 40,000 8 200,000 16

27. What is your best estimate of costs for creating / obtaining / adding

these records for/to your database, in the last full financial year ?

£'s

< 5,000 1 < 50,000 9

< 10,000 2 < 75,000 10

< 15,000 3 < 100,000 11

< 20,000 4 < 125,000 12 (109-110)

< 25,000 5 < 150,000 13

< 30,000 6 < 175,000 14

< 35,000 7 < 200,000 15

< 40,000 8 200,000 16


28. What is/are the source(s) of funding for this/these retrospective

conversion(s) ? (More than one response may be made)

Library current expenditure 1

Special internal funding 2 (112-114)

External funding 3

(please specify source)

29. What categories of material does this/these retrospective

conversion(s) include ? (More than one response may be made)

Complete collection 1

Titles using a specified cut-off date,
e.g. acquisition date, publication date ? 2

Titles in specific formats,

e,g. monographs, serials, maps ? 3

(please specify the formats)

Amount of use 4 (116-124)

Special collections (see Notes for completion) 5

Titles in a specified subject 6

Titles in a specified language 7

Physical location of titles 8

Other categories (please specify) 9


If you have circled the Special collections response, please complete

the table below, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary.

Name of collection Subject field(s) Number of titles in the collection Number of titles

already converted

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

30. How long do you expect this/these present retrospective conversion(s) to take ?

1 year 1

2 years 2

3 years 3 (126)

> 3 years 4

If > 3 years please specify the expected time to be taken ?

31. Do you have any bibliographic records that have not been

converted to machine readable form ?

Yes 1 Go to 32

(128)

No 2 Go to 40

32. What is your best estimate of the number of records that remain

to be converted to machine readable form ?

< 10,000 1 < 400,000 10

< 20,000 2 < 500,000 11

< 30,000 3 < 750,000 12

< 40,000 4 < 1,000,000 13

< 50,000 5 < 2,000,000 14 (130-131)

< 75,000 6 < 3,000,000 15

< 100,000 7 < 4,000,000 16

< 200,000 8 < 5,000,000 17

< 300,000 9 5,000,000 18

The following questions 33 - 37 deal with any future programmes

and/or plans for retrospective conversion.

33. Have you any definite programme for the retrospective conversion of some

of your records, commencing within the next 2 years ?

(This does not include any present programme of retrospective

conversion covered in previous questions ).

Yes 1 Go to 34

(133)

No 2 Go to 38

34. What categories of items will be included in this retrospective conversion ?

(More than one response may be made)

Complete collection 1

Titles using a specified cut-off date,
e.g. acquisition date, publication date ? 2

Titles in specific formats,

e,g. monographs, serials, maps ? 3

(please specify the formats)

Amount of use 4 (135-143)

Special collections (see Notes for completion) 5

Titles in a specified subject 6

Titles in a specified language 7

Physical location of titles 8

Other categories (please specify) 9

If you have circled the Special collections response, please complete

the table below, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary.

Name of collection Subject field(s) Number of titles

in the collection

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

35. On what date do you expect to commence this programme ?

January 1995 - June 1995 1

July 1995 - December 1995 2

January 1996 - June 1996 3 (145)

July 1996 - December 1996 4

January 1997 - June 1997 5

Not yet known 6

36. How long do you expect this retrospective conversion to take ?

1 year 1

2 years 2

3 years 3 (147)

> 3 years 4

If > 3 years please specify the expected time to be taken ?

37. What sources of funding are you expecting for this retrospective

conversion ? (More than one response may be made)

Library current expenditure 1

Special internal funding 2 (149-151)

External funding 3

(please specify source)

38. Have you any Special collections whose records have not been

converted to machine readable form, and are not included in any

programmes of retrospective conversion covered in Qus. 26-37 above ?

Yes 1 Go to 39

(153)

No 2 Go to 40

39. Please complete the table below, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary.

Name of collection Subject field(s) Number of titles

in the collection

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

40. In undertaking any of your retrospective conversions have you used or are you using

any published guidelines for retrospective conversion ?

Yes 1 Go to 41

(155)

No 2 Go to 42

41. Please state the guidelines used


42. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any further information that you wish to communicate, please do so on the blank page provided at the end of the questionnaire.

Please record your name, position, and the name of the library below. Individual libraries will not be identified in any publication arising from this survey.

Name.................................................................................

Position..............................................................................

Library...............................................................................

Please return the completed questionnaire, in the stamped, addressed envelope provided, to the address over :

Please return to :

Retrospective conversion survey,

UKOLN

University of Bath Library

Claverton Down,

BATH BA2 7AY

by Wednesday 21 December 1994



Contents

UKOLN logo Maintained by Information Services Group of UKOLN.
Last updated on 10-Mar-1998

Email comments to webmaster@ukoln.ac.uk