Assessing the Cost and Value of Bibliographic Control
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.55n3.124Abstract
In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.
References
William Warner Bishop, Cataloging As an Asset: An Address to the New York State Library School, May 15, 1915 (Waverly: Baltimore 1916): 4-nIbid., 7nIbid., 8nIbid., 16–17nEarly attempts at discussing, applying, and debating cost measures include Charles A. Cutter, “Dr. Hagan's Letter on Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1877): 219; James L. Whitney, “On the Costs of Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1885): 214–16; William Warner Bishop, “Some Considerations on the Cost of Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1905): 10–14; Aksel G.S. Josephson, “Committee on Cost and Method of Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1914): 598–99; Aksel G.S. Josephson, “The Cataloging Test: Results and Outlook,” ALA Bulletin 10 (1916): 242–44; “Plan for an Investigation into and Report on -the Cost of Cataloging,”
Bulletin of the American Library Association
(1925): 278–86; Adah Patton, “The Cost of Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1926): 140–41; “The Cost of Cataloging,”
Library Journal
(1927): 239; Fremont Rider, “Library Cost Accounting,”
Library Quarterly
, no. 4 (1936): 331–81; Robert A. Miller, “Cost Accounting for Libraries: Acquisition and Cataloging,”
Library Quarterly
, no. 4 (1937): 511–36; Jerrold Orne, “We Have Cut our Cataloging Costs!”
Library Journal
(1948): 1475–87; Felix Reichmann, “Cost of Cataloging,”
Library Trends
(1953): 290–317nGeorge Harris, '“Historic Cataloging Costs, Issues, and Trends,”' Library Quarterly 59 no. 1 (1989): 1-21nIbid., 1nKeyes D. Metcalf, '“Attitude of the Library Administrator Toward Cataloging,”' ALA Bulletin 35 no. 8 (Sept. 1941): 48nR. C. Swank, '“Cataloging Cost Factors,”' Library Quarterly 26 no. 4 (1956): 303-17nIbid., 307n '
Resource Description and Access
: RDA' (: Chicago: ALA 2010)nSwank, “Cataloging Cost Factors,” 309nJeffrey A. Raffel, Robert Shishko, '
Systematic Analysis of University Libraries: An Application of Cost–Benefit Analysis to the MIT Libraries
' (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Pr 1969)nArthur McAnally, review of
Systematic Analysis of University Libraries
, by Jeffrey A. Raffel and Robert Shishko,
Library Quarterly
40 no. 3 (1970): 355nRaffel and Shishko,
Systematic Analysis of University Libraries
, 46nBishop,
Cataloging As an AssetnAmar K. Lahiri, '“Toward a Bibliographic Common Cause,”' Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 8 no. 1 (1987): 66nIbidnAke I. Koel, '“Bibliographic Control at the Crossroads: Do We Get Our Money's Worth?”' Journal of Academic Librarianship 7 no. 4 (1981): 220-22nLahiri, “Toward a Bibliographic Common Cause,” 70nIbidnIbid., 71–72nIbid., 73nIbid., 74–76nTefko Saracevic, Paul B. Kantor, '“Studying the Value of Library and Information Services. Part I. Establishing a Theoretical Framework,”' Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 no. 6 (1997): 527-42 Saracevic and Kantor, “Studying the Value of Library and Information Services. Part II. Methodology and Taxonomy,”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science
, no. 6(1997): 543–63nIbid., 527nIbid., 562nRoxanne Missingham, '“Libraries and Economic Value: A Review of Recent Studies,”' Performance Measurement and Metrics 6 no. 3 (2005): 142-58 Susan Imholz and Jennifer Weil Arns,
Worth Their Weight: An Assessment of the Evolving Field of Library Valuation
(New York: Americans for Libraries Council, 2007), www.bibliotheksportal.de/fileadmin/0themen/Management/dokumente/WorthTheirWeight.pdfnJudy Luther, '
University Investment in the Library: What's the Return? A Case Study at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
' Library Connect White Paper (San Diego: Elsevier 2008) (accessed Sept. 1, 2010)n Cornell University Library Research & Assessment Unit: Making Data Make Sense, Library Value Calculations (2010) (accessed Sept. 1, 2010)nCheryl McCain, Jay Shorten, '“Cataloging Efficiency and Effectiveness,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 46 no. 1 (2002): 23-31nDilys E. Morris, '“Cataloging Staff Costs Revisited,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 44 no. 2 (2000): 70-83nDilys E. Morris, '“Where Does the Time Go? The Staff Allocations Project,”' Library Administration & Management 20 no. 4 (2006): 177-91nShawne D. Miksa, '“You Need My Metadata: Demonstrating the Value of Library Cataloging,”' Journal of Library Metadata 8 no. 1 (2008): 23-36nIbid., 27nIbid., 34nPhilip Hider, '“How Much Are Technical Services Worth? Using the Contingent Valuation Method to Estimate the Added Value of Collection Management and Access,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 52, no 4 (2008): 254-62nIbid., 258nMichael Gorman,
Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century
(Chicago: ALA (2000): 114nJoint Steering Committee for Development of RDA,
Resource Description and Access
: RDA, Objective 0.4.2.2n '
On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
, Jan. 9' (2008) , n () The charge and membership of the group is included in the
Final Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control
, submitted to the Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group, June 18, 2010, nLC Working Group,
On the Record
, 10n '“Series at the Library of Congress”' (2006) (accessed Nov. 14, 2010)nFinal Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment for Bibliographic ControlnLibrary of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control,
On the Record
, 37–38n () ALCTS Task Group on the LC Working Group Report, “On the Record: Report of the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control: Ten Actions for ALCTS,” nIbidnFinal Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment for Bibliographic Control
, 5–6nKaren Smith-Yoshimura, ()
Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices
(Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research, 2010), nIbid., 15–16nJohan Bollen, Herbert Van de Sompel, Marko A. Rodriguez, '“Towards Usage-Based Impact Metrics: First Results from the MESUR Project,” Apr. 23' (2008) (accessed Sept. 2, 2010)nThomas V Perneger, '“Relation between Online ‘Hit Counts’ and Subsequent Citations: Prospective Study of Research Papers In the BMJ,”' BMJ 329 no. 7465 (Sept. 4, 2004): 546-47nRush G. Miller, '“Shaping Digital Library Content,”' The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 no. 3 (2002): 100n () Diane Hillmann et al., “RDA Vocabularies: Process, Outcome, Use,”
D-Lib Magazine
, no. 1/2 (Jan./Feb. 2010), n () Projects underway include Next Generation Cataloging, n () Tom Delsey, RDA Editor, “RDA, FRBR/FRAD, and Implementation Scenarios,” memorandum to Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, Jan. 23, 2008, nDeirdre Kiorgaard, '“RDA Core Elements and FRBR User Tasks,” memorandum to Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA' (2008) (accessed Aug. 31, 2010)n () “RDA Value Matrix, Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control,” appendix to Final Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment for Bibliographic Control, June 18, 2010, n Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC 2009) (accessed Feb. 5, 2011)nExisting research demonstrates increased use of e-books when MARC records are integrated into the online public access catalog, but it does not consider the importance of timeliness in record creation and integration. See, for example, Jacqueline Belanger, “Cataloguing E-Books in UK Higher Education Libraries: Report of a Survey,”
Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems
, no. 3(2007): 203–16; Dennis Dillon, “E-Books: The University of Texas Experience, Part 2,”
Library Hi Tech
, no. 4 (2001): 350–62; Susan Gibbons, “NetLibrary eBook Usage at the University of Rochester Libraries, Version 2,” Sept. 27, 2001, www.lib.rochester.edu/main/studies/analysis.pdfn '
Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace
, Oct' (2009) (accessed Aug. 31, 2010)nIbid., 27nIbid., appendix BnSwank, “Cataloging Cost Factors,” 312–13n
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after it has been accepted for publication. Sharing can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
