kleiner.p65 Libraries 2000 355 355 Libraries 2000: Transforming Libraries Using Document Delivery, Needs Assessment, and Networked Resources Jane P. Kleiner and Charles A. Hamaker The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (LSU) Libraries are transforming traditional research library practices by containing serial expenditures, implementing network developments, and attracting grant support. This paper describes three projects de- signed to utilize document delivery and electronic access to expand col- lections, identify faculty journal needs, and share resources among Loui- siana libraries. It reports the results of document-delivery pilots and jour- nal needs assessment surveys of LSU science and social sciences fac- ulty and compares findings. Data on the use and cost of subsidized document delivery are included. The article also summarizes the librar- ies’ grant activities, which have been awarded more than $6 million in three years. s the world enters the twenty- first century, academic librar- ians must become entrepre- neurs to meet the needs of electronically adept faculty, students, and staff. Libraries must anticipate a clientele with higher expectations. These are chil- dren of the electronic age who were rocked to sleep by television, cut their teeth on video, had “toy” computers as toddlers, and did their schoolwork at more sophisticated workstations than existed a decade ago. Online catalogs displaying biblio- graphic records are not sufficient. Jane P. Kleiner is Head of Remote Document Services and Grants in the LSU Libraries at Louisiana State University and A & M College; e-mail: notjpk@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu. Charles A. Hamaker is Assistant Dean of Collection Development in the LSU Libraries at Louisiana State University and A & M College; e-mail: notcah@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu. Tomorrow’s users (and today’s) need ac- cess to electronic indexes and abstracts, full-text data collections, and graphics. They want the virtual library now, and the technology exists to create it. Some states, including Louisiana, are trans- forming traditional libraries into informa- tion centers; a few are pushing into the future by sharing resources among all types of libraries. Expanded access to electronic re- sources is costly, but even libraries in eco- nomically deprived states can achieve that goal. By redesigning traditional prac- tices, attracting grant funds, and gaining 356 College & Research Libraries July 1997 improved state support, libraries can move forward effectively. This paper de- scribes steps taken by the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Me- chanical College (LSU) Libraries to jump- start the next century. It focuses on three projects designed to: l utilize document delivery and elec- tronic access to expand traditional collec- tions; l identify faculty members’ journal needs for research and instruction; l share resources among academic, public, special, and K–12 school libraries. LSU’s 42-month document-delivery (DD) program and its impact on the li- braries’ collections are described. The re- sults of journal needs assessments of sci- ence and social sciences faculty are re- ported and compared with articles or- dered along with use and cost data for subsidized DD from the 3.5-year project. Finally, LSU’s approaches to attracting more than $6 million in state and federal grant funds, public subsidies, and state appropriations to develop library net- works are summarized. Implementation guidelines are outlined. Profile of Louisiana and the LSU Libraries Profiles of Louisiana and the flagship university underscore the plight facing higher education when these projects were initiated. The state is divided into sixty-four parishes (counties), with a to- tal population of 4,219,973. It is a mix of cultures: white, Protestant, and Anglo- Saxon in the north; French, Roman Catho- lic, and nonwhite in the south. It is largely rural; only 68 percent of the population have graduated from high school. At 16 percent, Louisiana’s illiteracy rate is the nation’s worst.1 The state has not recov- ered from a mid-eighties recession caused by the domestic oil industry collapse. The employment rate remains below that of 1981. Louisiana ranks forty-fifth among the states in personal income and forty- seventh in median household income.2 LSU is designated by the Board of Re- gents as the state’s only comprehensive university and by the Carnegie Founda- tion as a Research University I, placing it in the top two percent of higher educa- tion institutions. It supports 206 degree programs including fifty-six doctoral pro- grams.3 According to the National Re- search Council, LSU is in the top thirty universities in federal, state, and private expenditures. With 27,000 students, in- cluding 4,000 graduate students, it is one of twenty-five universities designated as a land-grant and sea-grant institution, and is actively seeking space-grant sta- tus.4 The LSU Libraries contain 2.7 million volumes, 3.5 million microforms, and manuscript collections of 12 million items. It is a member of the Association of Re- search Libraries (ARL), the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, the Southeastern Library Network, the Loui- siana Academic Library Information Net- work Consortium, the Coalition for Net- worked Information, and OCLC through SOLINET. Until these projects, the librar- ies had been at a standstill materials bud- get for a decade, relieved by occasional bursts of one-time funds. From Acquisition to Access Libraries serve as the front line of America’s information system.5 Their col- lections define their purpose and stand- ing. A “good” collection has historical depth and comprehensive coverage, and supports institutional programs with a modicum of interlibrary loan (ILL) use. However, this approach is under attack today. Journal prices have created a crisis because few budgets can keep pace with inflated costs and changing needs. A spring 1995 survey reported that materi- als budgets in ARL are being At 16 percent, Louisiana’s illiteracy rate is the nation’s worst.1 Libraries 2000 357 “reconceptualized” due to the serials cri- sis and electronic resource demands.6 Budgets are strained to provide elec- tronic information and the equipment to access it, and fund increasing costs for ILL and DD to acquire titles and articles not owned. Materials budgets fund DD in half of the ARL libraries surveyed.7 These reallocations decrease funding for tradi- tional materials. Further complicating the budget picture is the fluctuation of the American dollar against foreign curren- cies. Decreases in the dollar’s value from previous payment seasons have exacer- bated higher journal prices.8 International publishers’ titles represent a significant portion of serial purchases, especially in the sciences, technology, and medicine. Traditional Collection Development Approaches Libraries have opted for various solutions to these problems. Skyrocketing subscrip- tion prices have greatly impacted bud- gets; containment of journal collections has been a primary tool used to address the problem. Many libraries have reduced expenditures by utilizing the results of cir- culated title lists to gain faculty input in order to cancel or retain titles. Others have reduced staff, curtailed special collections expenditures, canceled memberships, and eliminated nonessential costs. Re- duced purchases also have resulted.9 An ARL monograph and serials study re- vealed that from 1986 to 1996, monograph purchases decreased 23 percent and se- rial purchases 8 percent, whereas serial prices increased 138 percent.10 The LSU Libraries historically di- vided materials funds into $1 mil- lion for books and $1 million for subscriptions until the 1980s when international journal prices began eroding library purchasing power. By 1992, after three rounds of can- cellations, faculty were resisting fur- ther reviews and cancellations. With serial costs climbing to 85 percent of the materials budget, LSU needed a new approach to the crisis. Following is the methodology de- signed by the LSU Libraries to curtail ex- penditures after repeated cancellations failed to contain costs. Data from 3.5 years of DD use, traditional interlibrary bor- rowing (ILB), and faculty needs assess- ments now are employed to redefine LSU’s journal collection and to expand information resources. Pilot study find- ings are provided and ongoing activities described. Table 1 depicts the history of DD use and the time line utilized for the pilot studies. This model now is being tested by other libraries. Literature Review The challenges journal collections present are not new. They cost too much. There are too few, require too much space, and are too costly to process, with pricing the paramount issue. Astle and Hamaker re- viewed a century of pricing issues and journal problems,11 including currency differentials and citation analysis12 which resulted in American libraries paying twenty times more for titles than German buyers.13 The “let America pay for it” at- titude continued until American library associations issued a joint resolution urg- ing libraries to cancel “excessively expen- sive journals” unless publishers reduced prices.14 German authors, publishers, and librarians then agreed to “state the sub- scription prices in advance” and reduce content and price 20 percent.15 Pricing issues again became critical in the 1970s. Berkeley’s University of Cali- TABLE 1 History of LSU DD/Redesign Pilots January 1993–June 1996 1st Pilot Chemistry Apr. 1993 2nd Pilot Geography Nov. 1993 & Anthropology 3rd Pilot Science/Technology Depts. Fall 1994 4th Pilot LSU UnCover gateway Fall 1995 5th Pilot Social Science Depts. Fall 1995 358 College & Research Libraries July 1997 fornia Biology Library reported that half the budget supported 194 high-cost jour- nals (5% of the titles).16 North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) 1987 con- ference papers confirmed that finding. Hamaker r e p o r t e d t h a t 1 0 p e r c e n t o f LSU’s journals claimed 60 percent of se- r i a l s c o s t s . T h i s t i m e t h e e x p e n s i v e t i t l e s w e r e p r o d u c e d b y i n t e r n a t i o n a l s c i e n t i f i c p u b l i s h e r s 1 7 w h o w e r e r e - sponsible for 43 percent of increased c o s t s , b u t o n l y 4 p e r c e n t o f t h e s u b - scriptions at LSU.18 Price increases, fluc- tuating currencies,19 distribution arrange- ments, and a nominal growth in the lit- erature drove increases as high as 66 per- cent from 1985 to 1986.20 Academics’ “publish or perish” man- date also has contributed to increasing costs, with journals often created to pro- vide space for aspiring professors. After surveying 200 English-language psychol- ogy journals, two psychology professors concluded that only 70 percent should survive based on content quality.21 A Janu- ary 1996 College & Research Libraries article evaluated the pricing literature and sug- gested that the “monopoly power of com- mercial publishers, combined with a third-party payment system, are at the heart of the problem.”22 Experiences with DD/ILL Today, libraries are looking to remote ac- cess and DD to replace titles. A DD study at Auburn University’s Veterinary Medi- cal Library reported that 76 percent of the journals had only one article ordered from them, and only three percent had requests for more than five articles. The authors concluded that such frequency data aid the collection development (CD) process.23 The use of document delivery/interli- brary loan (DD/ILL) data for CD purposes was the topic of the 1993 ALA Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) annual program.24 George Wash- ington University reported that of 2,000 journals canceled, articles from only 300 of the titles were requested. Only 170 journal titles had more than one request resulting in a $300,000 subscription saving and a $15,000 DD expenditure.25 A Western Illi- nois University study reported that $177,000 in subscriptions were canceled and $350 expended on DD.26 Using ILL data for CD purposes is not new. The LSU Libraries, and other insti- tutions, included it in collection decisions decades ago, but it is seldom reported in the literature. A 1993 study asserted that ILL statistics were valuable for monitor- ing collection strengths and weaknesses, making serial cuts, and purchasing mono- graphs.27 In 1994 ALA recognized this role by stating that ILL is an “integral element of collection development for all librar- ies.”28 Today, many libraries use ILL/DD to extend resources. For libraries consider- ing this option, Bazirjian’s article raises important questions.29 Coons and McDonald pose criteria for substituting DD for subscriptions.30 Document Deliv- ery Services: Issues and Answers takes the most comprehensive approach to DD ver- sus ownership.31 Specific to LSU’s first pilot is a Univer- sity of Illinois Chemistry Library DD study which revealed that only 13 percent of the requests were for articles from canceled titles.32 The study concluded that the library should not reinstate canceled titles or add new ones due to the few times any journal title was requested.33 A Columbia Univer- sity Libraries’ study examined biology, physics, and electrical engineering informa- tion needs and concluded that “it is signifi- cantly less expensive to purchase periodi- cal articles from document-delivery services or to borrow them through interlibrary loan than to buy them in anticipation of need.” Academics’ “publish or perish” mandate also has contributed to increasing costs, with journals often created to provide space for aspiring professors. Libraries 2000 359 Various DD prices are quoted by McFarland, ranging from $9.50 for regular delivery to $47 for rush requests.34 The Serials Environment at LSU From 1987 through 1991 three cancella- tion rounds had trimmed $200,000 from the LSU materials budget (see table 2). More than $178,000 in subscriptions were canceled in three reviews in the 1980s. Ini- tially, faculty were circulated lists of titles costing $200 or more and asked to iden- tify serials for cancellation. The results were compiled and distributed for a sec- ond review. Faculty then were asked to prioritize titles: one for core titles, two for research titles, and three for peripheral titles. Many titles, marked for cancellation in the first review, received priority rankings in the second round. The con- flicting results indicated that the process was not reliable for decision- making, but it was the only viable method at the time. More cancellations followed in the early 1990s. Faculty feared that the collection’s value was being diminished due to serials costs and declining book purchases. As serials expenditures ate into the materials budget, the Faculty Sen- ate Library Committee recommended that the libraries allocate one-third of the budget for books and the remainder for journals. Further cancellations were needed for book purchases, journal price increases, and new subscriptions. During the fourth serials review in 1992, faculty were becoming indignant about the distributed journal lists. Ask- ing faculty about their journal needs rather than using ratings was proposed. Initially viewed as impractical, the con- cept, which could lead to redesigning the journal collection, gained momentum. Though daunting for an institution with LSU’s strong historical collections, sub- scriptions were absorbing nearly 100 per- cent of the materials budget. Chances for funding increases were remote. As the 1992 serials picture worsened, more proposed cancellation lists were cir- culated. The lists were sent to deans and/ or department chairs in 1992, and Faculty Senate appearances were made to describe the worsening journals crisis. Dean Jenni- fer Cargill met with chairs in the colleges of agriculture and basic sciences, the depart- ments most affected by upcoming cancel- lations which would bring total cuts to al- most $500,000. LSU’s funding environment and Louisiana’s continuing economic struggle eliminated prospects for added monies. The libraries’ standstill budget had to be directed to the most cost-effective mix of article delivery and journal ownership. In 1993, following numerous discus- sions and faculty input, and with the sup- port of the Faculty Senate Library Com- mittee, the libraries decided to test rede- signing the journal collection. Concerned about continuing title cancellations, the Chemistry Department agreed to pilot the approach. The libraries had contracted for a standard UnCover gateway in late 1992 and intended to incorporate that access in the project. The LSU Document-Delivery Model After a year of planning, the LSU Librar- ies introduced the first pilot in April 1993 TABLE 2 History of Cancellations Year Titles Amount 1986 47 N/A 1987 83 $45,460 1988 114 $52,136 1989 420 $92,166 1990* 0 0 1991* 0 0 1992 1,027 $283,242 1993 471 $129,747 1994 45 $16,133 1995 332 $120,001 1996 0 0 Totals 2,539 $738,885 * One-time bond money 360 College & Research Libraries July 1997 could lead to a comprehensive redesign of LSU’s journal collection. The Chemistry Pilot Certain factors led to the Chemistry Department’s participation in the first pilot. In 1989 chemistry faculty identified 410 subscriptions as “indispensable for research,” at a total cost of $250,000, higher than any other campus depart- ment. Chemistry is dependent on serials, and LSU chemists were alarmed by can- cellations of titles they had deemed “es- sential.”36 Campuswide cancellations now totaled $650,000. Potentially, the chemistry pilot could provide the needed journal literature. The decision to conduct the pilot was not trivial for the depart- ment or the libraries. Neil Kestner, then chair of the Chem- istry Department, worked with the dean and investigators on documentation and needs assessment forms, and agreed to monitor faculty returns. In spring 1993, Kestner, Cargill, and the investigators in- troduced the pilot to one hundred chem- istry faculty and graduate students. The UnCover system was demonstrated. The LSU libraries selected UnCover as the primary supplier because it provided articles and tables of contents for more than 17,000 journal titles and promised an average 24-hour delivery time. The hold- ings were applicable to LSU’s needs be- cause 55 percent were scientific/techni- cal/medical (STM) journals. The system had Boolean capabilities and, though “clunky,” did not require sophisticated computer skills. Additionally, it offered UnCover Reveal, an alert service that per- mitted users to select journal titles, pro- file subject searches, and receive results by electronic mail. UnCover also served as an electronic index to 85 percent of LSU’s serials resources and could be ac- cessed from remote locations. Free articles were provided for chem- istry faculty and graduate students within defined parameters. Responsibility for DD was assigned to the Interlibrary Bor- to test the hypothesis that information needs could be met effectively and eco- nomically by integrating DD with CD activities. The libraries theorized that the savings resulting from substituting DD for canceled titles, plus savings in space, bindery costs, and serials staff, would more than offset subsidized DD costs. If the assumptions proved valid, the librar- ies would redefine the journal collection to provide a mix of subscription titles and articles delivered as needed.35 Traditionally, serials collections have been built by subscribing to titles that fac- ulty and librarians considered essential for research libraries or for accreditation. The primary criterion for subscriptions often has been what the library “should” have, rather than what is “needed” by the university community. LSU’s redesign plan would challenge that assumption by focusing on the relevance of journals to university programs. Therefore, research and instruction needs critical to the pilot’s goals emphasized: l improving access for faculty and graduate students to journal literature; l redesigning the LSU journal collec- tion by targeting titles meeting the university’s current instruction and re- search needs. It was theorized that a core of subscrip- tions would be essential to support us- ers, but information defining the core could not be located in the literature or elsewhere. Library staff and the Senate Library Committee were concerned about utilizing DD and wanted answers to the following: l Would DD allow the libraries to use funds more effectively? l Would it meet needs for titles the libraries did not own? l Would it provide effective access to canceled titles? l Would faculty accept DD in lieu of subscriptions? It also was essential that the pilot iden- tify journals acceptable for DD. If success- ful and pursued campuswide, the pilot Libraries 2000 361 rowing (ILB) Department where it meshed with traditional ILB services. Though subsidized, DD would eventu- ally expand to all departments and use parameters would become more liberal; guidelines applied during the initial pi- lots focused on canceled titles and new journals. As faculty and graduate students gained DD experience, their confidence in the pilot grew. At the same time, chem- istry faculty were asked to list individu- ally, in rank order, ten titles needed for teaching, ten for research, and ten for DD. Titles not owned could be included. The faculty was advised that a single depart- ment list would not be acceptable if the pilot were to provide meaningful data. The libraries planned to use the data to cancel titles identified for DD and to put some of the savings into new subscrip- tions. First Pilot Results The chemistry faculty listed 716 titles which resulted in 206 unique journals. The LSU libraries subscribed to 166 of the 206 journals. Faculty identified thirty-two subscription titles as amenable to DD which had been cited as essential for sub- scriptions six months earlier. Some fifty- nine titles, identified by three or more fac- ulty as critical for onsite access, suggested a chemistry journal core. Although fac- ulty surveys had been conducted since 1987, this pilot provided the first empiri- cal priority list of journals for that depart- ment. A full one-third of the subscription titles were of interest to only one profes- sor, which demonstrated the influence of single-faculty input on previous CD de- cisions. That factor, plus the finding that 19 percent of the subscriptions were rec- ommended for access via DD, indicated that titles with narrow scope could be considered for future cancellations. Inves- tigators also learned that faculty could effectively differentiate between titles needed for onsite access and subscrip- tions and those where DD would be ac- ceptable. Chemistry faculty recommended forty new journals, but identified ten of those for DD. With the limited experience of the first pilot, faculty were demonstrating DD acceptance. The results of this pilot would not influence current cancellations be- cause data from all departments using chemistry journals were critical to these decisions. DD findings from the chemis- try pilot were revealing, but not as sig- nificant as they would become as the project expanded. During April–June 1993, 199 ILB/DD orders were placed with 84 subsidized for DD (60 for faculty, 24 for graduate students). Other depart- ments’ orders were subsidized for titles within first-pilot parameters, and are re- ported in DD costs for the 42 months of the study. As the chemists’ positive reaction to DD and UnCover spread, other depart- ments became interested. Library staff n e e d e d i n p u t f r o m f a c u l t y u s i n g a broad range of journals and welcomed participation from the Department of G e o g r a p h y a n d A n t h r o p o l o g y ( G & A ) w h o s e c h a i r v o l u n t e e r e d f o r t h e f a l l 1993 pilot. The Second Pilot In the 1989 serials review, G&A faculty deemed 1,808 titles essential. Some 350 of them were unique to that discipline. Be- cause G&A targeted more “essential” journals than other departments, the fac- ulty were each invited to list forty-five titles in assessment surveys in rank or- der. The G&A chair, the libraries’ dean, and investigators described the project, dem- onstrated UnCover, and distributed sur- UnCover also served as an electronic index to 85 percent of LSU’s serials resources and could be accessed from remote locations. 362 College & Research Libraries July 1997 Pilot Extended to All Sciences Because the initial pilots indicated that DD was more cost-effective than subscriptions for high-cost, low-use titles, the project was expanded to more than thirty science de- partments, research centers, and institutes. These were serials-oriented disciplines with the most inflated journal costs. This focus had the greatest potential for con- taining serials expenditures. Selectors In 1992 the libraries assigned CD deci- sion-making to selectors. Previously, liai- sons were reference librarians who worked with academic departments for communication purposes, online search- ing, and bibliographic instruction. With the addition of CD responsibilities, disci- plines were reassigned to librarians in all departments and ranks, administrative to new hires. A year-long training program prepared them for their expanded roles. By spring 1994, the libraries were ready to move into the sciences with the Serials Redesign program incorporating selec- tors. Because many were new to these activities, they needed training and sup- port to participate. A successful program required the selectors to: l sell the benefits of access when de- scribing the initial pilots; l provide consistent information to the academic departments; l be confident when demonstrating UnCover; l provide knowledgeable responses to questions. To stress the importance of participation, the dean and/or investigators also at- tended the department meetings. Third Pilot Preparations The ensuing weeks were demanding for the Serials Redesign Task Force. The Dean and the LSU Vice-Chancellor for Aca- demic Affairs met with deans and depart- ment chairs in the colleges and research centers to encourage participation. This phase included the Colleges of Agricul- veys and documentation to forty G&A fac- ulty and graduate students in November 1993. After two months of testing DD/ILB support, faculty completed individualized journal needs assessments. Tabulated re- turns identified 535 journal titles as needed onsite. The libraries subscribed to 59 per- cent of that number. More important, the G&A survey revealed that subscriptions for one-third of the titles reportedly sup- porting their discipline were not listed by any G&A faculty. Some $17,740 in sub- scription titles now identified for DD had been defended for retention in previous reviews. This freed one-third of G&A ex- penditures for new subscriptions and fu- ture price increases. Further analysis iden- tified a more diverse core journal collec- tion than that of chemistry. The G&A department is less than half the size of LSU’s chemistry unit and only ordered 162 articles in the first eight months. Two fell within initial DD param- eters. Clearly, earlier cancellations had not hampered department programs.37 Faculty, research associates, and gradu- ate students ordered 1,193 articles in the first fifteen months of UnCover use. Ini- tial data revealed unexpected journal us- age. l A total of 1,193 articles were or- dered from 540 different journal titles. l Seven percent (82) of the articles were ordered from the same journal title three or more times. l Three percent (41) were ordered from the same journal title four or more times. l Less than one percent (17) were or- dered from the same journal title ten or more times. Requests indicated that even the most frequently ordered titles did not merit subscriptions because of the span of years required to fill the orders. Total article costs from frequently requested journals were far below subscription and backfile costs. Investigators theorized that the project would result in similar findings when expanded campuswide. Libraries 2000 363 increased 122 percent; increases also oc- curred in traditional transactions. In the 3.5-year project, ILB had annual increases ranging from 33 percent one year to FY96’s 25 percent increase. Staff were added to maintain fast turnaround of orders. A total of 2,943 articles were received from DD suppliers in FY95. UnCover re- quests averaged 200 monthly, with an average article cost of $12.72. The imme- diacy promise of an average 24-hour de- livery time held constant for UnCover articles; 94 percent arrived in 24 hours. Results of a June 1996 UnCover time study are reflected in table 3. Other DD suppliers also were used. In FY95 orders went to the British Library Depository Supply Centre (BLDSC), Uni- versity Microfilms Inc. (UMI), the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical In- formation (CISTI), and the National Techni- cal Information System (NTIS). A total of 856 requests was filled by these suppliers, ap- proximately seventy per month, at an aver- age cost of $14.43 based on total charges for the four suppliers. Of 700 faculty in LSU’s sci-tech depart- ments, 401 identified 2,689 titles for sub- scriptions. The libraries subscribed to 1,675 of the titles, more than 60 percent. Faculty identified 701 journals for DD. The most dramatic finding was that 800 sci-tech subscription journals were not ture, Basic Sciences, and Engineering; Mathematics and Kinesiology De- partments located in other colleges (Arts and Sciences, and Education, respectively); and the research cen- ters and institutes that reported to the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Economic Development. A selectors’ “redesign package” was developed including: l a letter describing the project from the library dean; l survey assessment forms to be used by faculty to list journals needed for research and instruction and for DD; l findings from the first two pilots; l CARL UnCover, a slide show cre- ated by Kleiner using multimedia presen- tation software; l an overhead presentation for staff reluctant to use the CARL UnCover show; l presentation narrative and notes for staff who prefer the lecture mode or to accompany CARL UnCover; l project brochures and handouts; l UnCover instructions specific to LSU facilities and services. Training sessions for the selectors were held to familiarize them with the project and contents of the “redesign package.” Collecting and analyzing faculty surveys dominated fiscal year (FY) 1995. Faculty were introduced to accessing journal lit- erature via UnCover and utilizing the tables of contents service. They were asked to identify and rank journals within similar parameters used for earlier pilots. During this same period, Cargill, Kleiner, and others were involved in a series of grant projects initiated in 1992 to upgrade Louisiana’s academic library network, extend access statewide, and expand electronic resources for the Baton Rouge campus. These are summarized later in this paper. Science Pilot Results The ILB Department was dramatically impacted by the pilots. In FY95 DD use TABLE 3 UnCover Time Study 1996 Number of Percentage of Time in Hours Requests Requests Less than 1 hour 26 25.2% 1–2 hours 20 19.4 2–6 hours 22 21.4 6–24 hours 30 29.1 24–48 hours 3 2.9 48–65 hours 0 0.0 65–68 hours 2 2.0 Totals 103 100% 66% filled in 6 hrs. or less 94% filled in 24 hrs. or less 98% filled in 28 hrs. or less None took more than 68 364 College & Research Libraries July 1997 listed by any faculty. Another 296 sub- scription titles were recommended for DD. Because some of these could impact the social sciences, none would be moved to DD until completion of the social sci- ences pilot. Of the 1,000 new titles recom- mended for subscriptions, more than half were listed by one faculty member. Two or more faculty listed new titles for sub- scriptions, totaling $190,000. Utilizing the accumulated data, the work of redesigning LSU’s journal collec- tion began. For the first time in a decade, the libraries subscribed to 260 new jour- nals, totaling $40,000. And, for the first time since cancellations began in 1987, 300 subscriptions totaling $120,000 were can- celed without conflict. Cost-Effectiveness of DD Demonstrated In FY95 data revealed twenty titles as sources of articles requested ten or more times. Slightly more than 20 percent (426 of more than 2,000 articles) were ordered from the twenty titles listed in table 4. It would appear more cost-effective to sub- scribe to these titles, but pilot findings invalidate that assumption. Total cost for the 426 articles was $5,629, but a one-year subscription to the twenty journals totals $28,229. Even re- quests for the most heavily ordered title, Sensors and Actuators, Pt. A, could not jus- tify a subscription, though the cost of the title’s FY95 requests exceeded the sub- scription price (cost of articles = $1,350; one-year subscription = $1,184). The one hundred articles ordered from Sensors and Actuators, Pt. A spanned five years, totaling $5,920 for the subscription and backfile to fill the FY95 orders. More- over, most of the articles were ordered by one individual. For 20 percent of the cu- TABLE 4 Frequently Requested Titles/Costs FY95 Total Journal Titles Number Copyright Cost Subscription Mechanism and Machine Theory 10 $70 $135 $900 Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology 10 $63 $128 $174 Neuroscience 10 $70 $135 $3,305 Science of the Total Environment 10 $70 $135 $2,387 Social Science and Medicine 10 $70 $135 $1,680 International Journal of Peptide 11 $113 $184 $520 Toxicology and Industrial Health 11 $36 $107 $168 Applied Catalysis. A, General 12 $84 $162 $2,921 Journal of Environmental Quality 12 $11 $89 $100 Personality & Individual Differences 12 $84 $162 $710 Sensors and Actuators. Pt. B 12 $84 $162 $1,115 American Journal of Industrial Med. 14 $126 $217 $1,289 Psychopharmacology 14 $84 $175 $2,363 Environmental Toxicology & Chem. 16 $112 $216 $515 Planta Medica (George Thieme) 18 $77 $194 $278 Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia 23 $161 $311 $570 Neuroscience Letters 30 $210 $405 $2,934 European Journal of Pharmacology 37 $259 $500 $4,222 Automatica 54 $378 $729 $985 Sensors and Actuators. Pt. A 100 $700 $1,350 $1,184 Totals 426 $2,860 $5,631 $28,320 Libraries 2000 365 mulative subscription costs, needs were met promptly. This pattern held true for other heavily requested titles. The inves- tigators established that DD is the most cost-effective solution for high-cost jour- nals, even for titles ordered ten or more times. Introducing LSU UnCover After more than two years of DD use, li- brary administrators agreed to test UnCover ’s Subsidized UnMediated Or- dering (SUMO) gateway. The SUMO cus- tomized gateway enables subscribing li- braries to define ordering parameters, load journal holdings, list call numbers, and define patrons; it also provides cost- accounting detail if contracted. Dedicated ports ensure ready access. User groups can be defined that enable patrons to order directly from UnCover after establishing personal profiles. Ar- ticles are transmitted to users’ fax ma- chines when machines are available round the clock, or to the library in the absence of 24-hour fax facilities. With SUMO and Reveal alert service site licenses, clients can order directly from Reveal search results. The LSU Libraries renamed the SUMO FIGURE 1 UnCover Usage FY96 gateway LSU UnCover and established new parameters for subsidized unmedi- ated ordering: l eligible clientele include faculty, re- search associates, and graduate students; l orders are blocked for all LSU jour- nal titles; l articles costing more than $26.50 are blocked. LSU UnCover offers third-party refer- ral whereby clients can refer blocked or- ders to the libraries’ ILB Department for the following reasons: l LSU blocks all titles with holdings, even when limited to a single issue, be- cause of inconsistent serial records; l cost-sharing arrangements are made with requestors for orders blocked due to charges over the $26.50 limit, or traditional ILB can be utilized. Though undergraduates are excluded by client parameters, LSU UnCover ben- efits them too. With call numbers and hold- ings listed, LSU UnCover serves as an elec- tronic index to 85 percent of the journal collection. Undergraduates also can order articles and charge them to credit cards, but when need for an article is justified, the libraries subsidize the request. 366 College & Research Libraries July 1997 The LSU UnCover gateway was intro- duced in the fall of 1995. A task force de- signed customized screens, and LSU’s patron file and journal holdings were loaded. Use began increasing by that November. By January 1996, unmediated orders surpassed library-placed requests. Figure 1 illustrates changes in unmedi- ated versus ILB-initiated UnCover orders and average monthly article expendi- tures. Most patrons use LSU UnCover re- sponsibly; the median number of articles ordered per user is three with a median cost of $40. However, instances of abuse do occur. Three users have ordered fifty articles or more with the highest patron cost at $2,671. To date, the UnCover Com- pany has not responded to LSU’s request to cap patron ordering based on a dollar amount or volume per user, although this capability is promised for 1997. From January 1993 through June 1996 (forty-two months), the use of DD sup- pliers to expand journal literature access and offset cancellations resulted in expen- ditures of $136,641 for all DD services. In FY95 total dollars recouped by the librar- ies from cancellations reached $738,885 in annual expenditures recovered, offsetting DD costs many times. LSU’s average UnCover article cost was $12.75 during the 42-month period of this study. In FY96 the av- erage cost of library- mediated orders was $14.26. Library-subsi- dized unmediated or- dering by faculty, re- search associates, and graduate students us- ing the LSU gateway averaged $13.86. Table 5 reflects expenditures for UnCover articles and services during the pilots. Total FY95 and FY96 costs for other sup- pliers are listed in table 6. Journals Ordered versus Journals Recommended Building a journal collection is an enigma. No model can be devised suitable to all research institutions because each serves a unique community. Academic libraries have valid concerns about underutilized costly materials. Studies reveal that less than 60 percent of research libraries’ hold- ings circulate, and 80 percent of those are checked out soon after purchase.38 Yet, li- braries have continued to buy costly ma- terials and pressure university adminis- trators for more space in which to house them. Academic librarians and faculty have assumed that they know their libraries’ collection needs, but emerging DD ser- vices and technology developments may be altering that premise. This became evi- dent when faculty surveys were com- pared with UnCover articles ordered from November 1995 through May 1996. Faculty journal needs lists from the Col- leges of Basic Sciences, Engineering, and Agriculture Departments,39 plus the Cen- ter for Coastal, Energy, and Environmen- tal Resources (CCEER), were matched with orders placed by UnCover clients from the same units (see figure 2). The commonal- ity between journal titles recommended for TABLE 5 UnCover Cost History FY93–FY96 Period Articles Access Total FY93* $4,549 Standard gateway $5,000 $9,549 FY94 $11,221 Two passwords $1,800 $13,021 FY95 $26,621 Two passwords $1,800 $30,921 FY96 $54,911 Custom gateway, $67,411 Reveal $12,500 Totals $97,302 Total access costs $21,100 $120,902 * FY93 covers a six-month period Library-subsidized unmediated ordering by faculty, research associ- ates, and graduate students using the LSU gateway averaged $13.86. Libraries 2000 367 subscription and DD ar- ticles requested from those titles was mini- mal. In the Industrial Engineering (IE) De- partment, the heaviest DD user in this com- parison, articles were ordered from 102 jour- nals; only 48 titles were recommended for sub- scriptions. The com- parison study revealed only three common journal titles, meaning they appeared on faculty lists and were the source of DD or- ders placed during the study. Chemistry, the first pilot department and second heaviest UnCover user, ordered ar- ticles from sixty-one journals. Chemists listed forty-two journal titles for subscription, but orders for articles from only nine journals TABLE 6 Other DDS Costs, Data DDS FY96 FY95 Avg. Art. Fill Est. Turn- Supplier Cost Cost Cost Rate around BLDSC $8,833 $8,175 $16.07 91% 5–7 Days UMI $3,584 $3,584 $11.72 69 4 Days CISTI $3,248 $525 $13.82 79 2–4 Days NTIS $144 $68 N/A N/A N/A Totals $15,737 $12,352 FIGURE 2 Sci/Tech Comparison were in common. Similar patterns were re- flected in other departmental comparisons. It appears that greater access to the literature afforded by alert services, electronic indexes and abstracts, and other digitized resources increases the range of journals used by re- searchers beyond their own expectations and those of academic librarians. In a 1995 article, Philip Barden of the 368 College & Research Libraries July 1997 BLDSC remarked that DD economics were based on increasingly high subscription costs and the diminishing buying power of library budgets. He hypothesized that the focus of information dissemination in the sciences was becoming the article rather than the journal.40 The LSU pilots corroborate his theory. The Social Sciences The libraries’ Serials Redesign project was introduced to social science departments in spring 1996 and extended into FY97. Com- parison findings of journals recommended for subscription and articles ordered from those titles by surveyed departments are similar to the science departments (see figure 3). The heaviest UnCover users during the seven- month period, social work, ordered articles from seventy-eight journals and recom- mended one hundred titles for subscription. Articles were ordered from only seven com- mon titles. G&A recommended 215 journals for subscription and ordered DD articles from 49 titles, including articles from only seven journal titles recommended for subscription. An interesting outcome of the social sciences comparative study was the de- gree of overlap in titles ordered by three departments: G&A, psychology, and so- cial work. Articles ordered from com- mon journals in these departments ac- counted for 18.9 percent of the 317 ar- ticles ordered by the three faculties. This indicates that the value of the social sci- ences investigation is in determining interdisciplinary journals commonly needed, rather than in replacing titles with DD. Experiential Findings Although the social sciences pilot is still in progress and the humanities pilot just beginning, four years of data and con- siderable anecdotal evidence have led to the following conclusions, which are ex- pected to remain valid throughout the project: l It is more economical to use DD for high-cost, low-use journals than to sub- scribe to them. l Faculty and graduate students can FIGURE 3 Social Science Comparison Libraries 2000 369 work effectively with fewer journal sub- scriptions than they or library staff ex- pected. l Most clients prefer direct ordering and delivery without library intervention. l Clients like and use tables of con- tents services. l Faculty cannot accurately predict the journals, beyond a certain core, that are essential to their work and which should be on subscription. l Faculty will readily accept DD in lieu of subscriptions when the service is marketed effectively and meets promised expectations, including 24-hour turn- around. l Clients will seldom abuse unmedi- ated DD services. l DD permits libraries to contain sub- scription costs and effectively meet user needs. l Traditional CD concepts can be changed through orientation programs, effective training, and an efficient DD ser- vice. Grants, Networks, and the Undergraduate The success of LSU’s DD projects could be diminished by the perception that un- dergraduate library needs are neglected in favor of faculty and graduate students because undergraduate orders are not routinely subsidized. Most canceled sub- scriptions, however, were expensive re- search titles and generally not used by undergraduates. Also, the LSU Libraries, by partnering with other academic de- partments and libraries, have expanded electronic resources statewide utilizing grant funds. Due to this article’s focus on DD and Serials Redesign, the grant efforts are summarized because of their significance in expanding information resources, in- cluding full-text databases. Several ar- ticles have been written describing LSU grant projects.41 The funded projects and suggestions for proposal development also were the subject of a presentation at the April 1997 ACRL National Confer- ence.42 In 1991 the LSU Libraries began seek- ing external funding. Louisiana now has two electronic library networks that have united the resources of 105 academic, public, special, and school libraries: the Louisiana Online University Information System (LOUIS) and the Louisiana Li- brary Network (LLN). These projects were implemented and initially funded by three grants totaling $1.4 million from the Louisiana Educational Quality Sup- port Fund (LEQSF) administered by the state Board of Regents, and U.S. Depart- ment of Education grants totaling more than $2.6 million. LEQSF awards are unique to Louisi- ana, but similar funding sources often are available in other states. In Louisiana, all educational institutions compete for LEQSF awards, but academic libraries cannot apply directly. The LSU libraries achieved their awards by developing partnerships with colleges and academic departments on campus and across the state. Funding comes from a trust dedi- cated to high-quality educational projects. The process is highly competitive, and proposals are evaluated by out-of-state reviewers. Network communication costs have been reduced by an educational tariff ap- proved by the Louisiana Public Services Commission. This provided a $5.6 million rate reduction for networked libraries and ongoing annual reductions of $1.2 million. In 1996 the Louisiana legislature approved annual funding of $1,085,000 for network support. State funding increased to $1.5 million in FY 1997. LOUIS and LLN have expanded elec- tronic resources and provided Internet access for participating institutions and the general public. Equipment and staff are housed at LSU for this joint project of the libraries and the LSU Division of Computing Services. Constituents in- clude the State Library of Louisiana, four higher education boards, sixteen colleges 370 College & Research Libraries July 1997 and universities, twenty public and pri- vate K–12 schools, and sixty-six indepen- dent public library systems. The network subscribes to twenty-nine electronic indexes and abstracts and to full- text products providing articles from more than one thousand periodicals. The full- text license covers unlimited downloading and/or printing of articles. The indexes and abstracts access thousands of general and academic journals, as well as newspa- pers. Access to specialized indexes for en- gineering, biology, agriculture, education, and other disciplines are subsidized by ei- ther initial grants or recent awards to the LSU Libraries. Current awards support a Coastal Stud- ies project and two electronic classrooms to support hands-on instruction. The uni- versity, in tandem with Computing Ser- vices, also is funding a third electronic classroom and more than a hundred high- end workstations to be installed in three new library computing laboratories. At the same time, the LSU Digital Li- brary is capturing the works of distin- guished faculty and other institutional as- sets. Mississippi River photographs are being digitized in the Coastal Studies project. The libraries’ Special Collections project on Louisiana Native Americans will build on this architecture. Currently, the project is being developed within the LSU Intranet, but subsequent phases will tar- get full Internet access. Most recently, the federal education of- fice awarded the network an additional million dollars for retrospective conver- sion, digital library initiatives, to begin developing distance education library re- sources and electronic reserve capabilities, as well as other activities. These projects will be implemented in the year ahead. Grant awards have opened a new electronic universe for LSU users. The classrooms will ensure that undergradu- ates and others get the hands-on experi- ence essential to accessing campus and Internet information. The latest award w i l l b o o s t c u r r e n t a c t i v i t i e s , e x t e n d t r a i n i n g f o r u s e r s a n d p u b l i c a n d school library staff, and begin devel- oping information resources to support distance learning. Due to the successes of the grant- funded programs, the DD pilots, Serials Redesign, the networks, and the digital project, LSU is positioned to move into the twenty-first century. These achieve- ments persuaded state legislators to ap- propriate and increase funding for con- tinued network support and the univer- sity to fund new library computing facili- ties. Most important, these resources will enable the academic community and the state’s citizens to make a successful tran- sition to the new millennium. Libraries 2000 is a reality at LSU, and it has been achieved without a great outpouring of university funds in a state battling eco- nomic reverses. Initiating DD/Serials Redesign Projects Effectively integrating DD into libraries’ CD activities and redesigning traditional journal collections require planning and organized implementation. Activities that led to LSU’s success are proposed for other institutions interested in adapting this model. These include: 1. Obtain the support of the university administration. a. Provide administrators with a sum- mary of problems impeding traditional CD practices and options to offset the prob- lems. b. Educate appropriate university groups about the pricing crises. 2. Enlist the aid of deans, directors, and department heads to embark on a DD trial. a. Gain faculty advocates by involv- Grant awards have opened a new electronic universe for LSU users. Libraries 2000 371 ing them in the process; this is more eas- ily achieved with the support of the uni- versity administration. b. Invite investigators from other uni- versities’ successful programs to present their data and entertain questions at a seminar for university leaders. 3. Enlist campuswide cooperation in support of document delivery. a. Initiate a pilot or series of pilots in academic departments. b. Collect and analyze pilot data to pique interest and obtain cooperation from other academic departments. c. Provide faculty with data and sum- marize and cite research from the litera- ture describing similar projects. 4. Assign DD responsibility to an effec- tive library department. a. The project’s success depends on ef- ficiency and fast turnaround of orders. b. The library should deliver what is promised, which relies on staff and DD supplier performance. 5. Design a proactive program to intro- duce DD as a collections component. a. Appoint a task force to be respon- sible for program components. b. When possible, include academic department chairs in developing orien- tation programs, at least initially. 6. Market the program to the campus. a. Develop and provide library staff with tools essential to successful presen- tations such as presentation software, equipment, slide shows, documentation, etc. b. Plan the most effective means of es- tablishing and implementing the pro- gram in keeping with an activities time line. c. Provide faculty with selectors’ e- mail addresses and telephone and fax numbers to provide support should ques- tions arise or faculty/students encounter problems. 7. Prepare selectors to participate in the project. a. Familiarize staff with documenta- tion, data, and literature relevant to simi- lar projects. b. A computer-based presentation pro- vides an effective introduction and ensures consistent information. Overheads, narra- tives, outlines, notes, and other information should be available to participating staff. c. Train presenters to use the primary DD system and inform them about other DD suppliers. d . If the primary DD system utilizes user profiles, require presenters to estab- lish them to gain system experience. e. Schedule presentations at academic faculty meetings to promote the program and provide an arena to address concerns. f. At least one experienced task force member should attend faculty meetings with the presenter(s). 8. If the library elects to assess faculty journal needs, it is beneficial to involve the department chair in the process. a. Simple and direct survey forms should be provided. b. For a valid journal needs assess- ment, faculty must complete the forms in- dividually; do not accept departmental assessments. c. Invite the department chair to take responsibility for collecting the surveys and forwarding them to the library. 9. If journal needs surveys are conducted, the library should establish procedures for tabulating and analyzing the data. a. Identify staff, hardware, and soft- ware to handle data. b. Design models to build and analyze the serials database. (LSU uses Access, but other packages are available.) 10. Collect, analyze, and report results to faculty, administrators, the university at large, and the profession. a. Present and update data in campus publications. 372 College & Research Libraries July 1997 b. Use a library publication, or de- velop one if needed, to keep the univer- sity community informed about the project. c. Publish findings in the professional literature. Conclusion Today’s academic libraries must examine existing practices, implement changes, streamline procedures, improve access, and seek creative funding options. Librarians must become entrepreneurs abandoning “safe” approaches for innovative solutions. Demands for information in electronic and developing formats are forcing librar- ies to budget to support new technolo- gies while continuing funding for tradi- tional collections. Funds can be maxi- mized by redirecting traditional journal collections to target current research and instruction needs by using DD to supple- ment collections. Commercial DD and tables of contents alert services expand journal resources cost-effectively. Libraries can cancel high- cost, low-use journals without impeding information access and free dollars for other uses. Through periodic assessments of faculty journal needs and ongoing analyses of DD use, libraries can design dynamic collections for the changing needs of users. Journal ex- penditures can be contained and access to lit- erature increased. Subsidized unmediated or- dering of journal articles, within defined pa- rameters, offers firsthand evidence of the fast turnaround provided by some DD suppli- ers. This ensures user satisfaction and reduces staff time required for mediated ordering. In conjunction with these activities, li- brarians must seek new funding sources in this prevailing climate of static budgets. One largely untapped resource is through grants. Federal, state, private, and corpo- rate dollars are available and the agen- cies receptive to shared resources projects. Libraries must partner with other cam- pus units, institutions, and the corporate world to improve funding opportunities. Librarians need to develop skills to com- pete successfully in the grants’ market- place. Research libraries can no longer suc- cumb to tradition. They must take risks, test different methods of information dis- semination, and seek new remedies for old problems. As the new millennium ap- proaches, members of the profession must begin transforming today’s traditional re- search libraries into the client-focused in- formation centers of tomorrow. Notes 1. States in Profile: The State Policy Reference Book (McConnellsburg, PA.: State Policy Research, 1991). 2. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Current Population Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990). 3. The 1996–97 LSU General Catalog 88 (April 1996): 9–11. 4. Ibid. 5. Concept stated in a resolution passed by ALA Council in San Francisco, June 1987, en- titled Impact of Dollar Devaluation, sponsored by the Resources and Technical Services Division of ALA, and introduced at the behest of the Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Re- search Libraries Discussion Group. 6. Robert G. Sewell, “Library Materials Budget Survey: Source of Funds and New Commit- ments,” ARL Newsletter 182 (Oct. 1995): 8–9. 7. Ibid., 8–9. 8. Comparison of the 1986 and 1987 price lists for Elsevier Sequoia, Elsevier Scientific, and Elsevier U.S. 9. Anna H. Perrault, “The Changing Print Resource Base of Academic Libraries in the United States,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 36 (fall 1995): 295–305, based on Perrault’s Ph.D. dissertation, The Changing Print Resource Base of Academic Libraries in the United States: A Comparison of Collection Patterns in Seventy-Two ARL Academic Libraries of Non-serial Im- prints for the Years 1985 and 1989 (Florida State University, 1994). Libraries 2000 373 10. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Statistics 1994–95: A Compilation of Statistics from the One Hundred and Nineteen Members of the Association of Research Libraries (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1996), 10–11. 11. Deana Astle and Charles Hamaker, “Journal Publishing: Pricing and Structural Issues in the 1930s and the 1980s,” in Advances in Serials Management: A Research Annual 2 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988), 1–36. 12. Lewis Pyenson, Cultural Imperialism and Exact Sciences: German Expansion Overseas 1900– 1930 (New York: Peter Lang, 1985), 211. 13. M. Llewellyn Raney, “Foreign Exchange,” Library Journal 45, no. 6 (Mar. 15, 1920): 256; “Editorial,” Library Journal 45, no. 10 (May 15, 1920): 454. 14. Charles Harvey Brown, “Bringing the Periodical Situation Up to Date,” ALA Bulletin 27, no. 9 (Sept. 1933): 379. 15. ———, “Discussion on German Periodicals,” Library Journal 58, no. 21 (Dec. 1, 1933): 978. 16. Charles Bourne and Dorothy Gregor, “Methodology and Background Information to As- sist the Planning of Serials Cancellations and Cooperative Serials Collections in the Health Sci- ences,” ERIC report ED 104-409 (Berkeley: Institute for Library Research, University of Califor- nia, Jan. 1975). 17. Papers by Charles Hamaker and others, presented at the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) Conference at Dennison University, Granville, Ohio, June 1987. 18. Astle and Hamaker, “Journal Publishing,” 13. 19. Ibid., 14. 20. Ibid., 18–19. 21. Lionel Standing and Stuart McKelvie, quoted in Chronicle of Higher Education 33, no. 23 (Feb. 18, 1987): 6. 22. Michael A. Stoller, Robert Christopherson, and Michael Miranda, “The Economics of Pro- fessional Journal Pricing,” College & Research Libraries 57 (Jan. 1996): 9–21. 23. Tamara P. Lee and Lawrence J. Myers, “Document Delivery at a Veterinary Medical Li- brary: A One-Year Study of Use Patterns,” Collection Management 16, no. 2 (1992): 75–92. 24. The conference programs were reviewed by Lynne C. Branch in “Document Delivery: Where Collection Development and ILL Meet: An RASD Collection Development and Evalua- tion Section Program,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 18, no. 1 (spring 1994): 96–97. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid., 97. 27. Mounir A. Khalil, “Applications of an Automated ILL Statistical Analysis As a Collection Development Tool,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply 4, no. 1 (1993): 45–54. 28. American Library Association, Reference and Adult Services Division, Management and Operation of Public Services Section, Interlibrary Loan Committee, “National Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States 1993,” RQ 33, no. 4 (summer 1994): 477–79. 29. Rosann Bazirjian, “A Charmed Brew: Document Delivery and Collection Development in the Fast Lane,” Collection Management 19, no. 3/4 (1995): 7–10. 30. Bill Coons and Peter McDonald, “Implications of Commercial Document Delivery,” Col- lege & Research Libraries News 56, no. 9 (Oct. 1995): 626–31. 31. Eleanor Mitchell and Sheila A. Walters, Document Delivery Services: Issues and Answers (Medford, N. J.: Learned Information, 1995). 32. Tina E. Chrzastowski and Mary A. Anthes, “Seeking the 99% Chemistry Library: Extend- ing the Serial Collection through the Use of Decentralized Document Delivery,” Library Acquisi- tions: Practice and Theory 19, no. 2 (summer 1995): 141–52. 33. Ibid., 149. 34. Robert T. McFarland, “A Comparison of Science Related Document Delivery Services,” Science and Technology Libraries 13 (fall 1992): 115–44. 35. Charles A. Hamaker, “Redesigning Research Libraries: First Steps toward the 21st Cen- tury,” Journal of Library Administration 22, no. 4 (1996): 33–48 36. Charles Harvey Brown, Scientific Serials, ACRL monograph no. 16 (Chicago: ACRL, 1956), 96. 37. Information on the two pilots is gleaned from internal reports and from the paper by Charles A. Hamaker, “Re-designing Serial Collections,” Journal of Library Administration 20, no. 1 (1994): 37–47. 38. Paul Evan Peters, “Networked Information Resources and Services: Next Steps,” Cause/ Effect 14 (summer, 1991): 27–29, 33–39. 39. Debra L. Currie, “Serials Redesign: Using Electronic Document Delivery to Reshape Ac- 374 College & Research Libraries July 1997 cess to Agriculture Journal Literature,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 3, no. 2 (1995): 13–22. 40. Philip Barden, “Multimedia Document Delivery—The Birth of a New Industry,” Online & CD-ROM Review 19 (Dec. 1995): 321–23. 41. Jennifer Cargill, “A Target of Opportunity: Creation of the LOUIS Network,” Library Hi Tech 13, no. 1–2 (1995): 87; “Library Consortia for the 90s,” LITA Newsletter 16 (fall 1995): 9; Karen Cummings, “Louisiana’s Window to the World,” Computers in Libraries 15, no. 6 (June 1995); “LOUIS Update,” LLA Bulletin 57 (spring 1995): 245; Nancy Nuckles, “Louisiana Network Links Libraries,” College & Research Libraries News 55 (July/Aug. 1994): 414–15; “LANET Linking Loui- siana,” Government Technology 7 (Mar. 1994): 12–13; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Re- search and Improvement, Library Programs, “Library Grant Helps Louisiana on to the Informa- tion Superhighway,” LP-94-4002 (Jan. 1994); Jennifer Cargill and Ronald D. Hay, “Achieving a Vision of a Statewide Academic Library Network,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (Jan. 1994): 386–87; “Louisiana to Improve Networks,” College & Research Libraries News 54 (Dec. 1993): 627; “Network Funded by U.S. Dept. of Ed.: State University and Agricultural College Receives $2.5 Million,” Library Journal 118 (Nov. 1993): 18. 42. Jane P. Kleiner, “Grants, Networks, and Partnerships” (paper presented at the panel Rein- venting Libraries 2000: A New Paradigm for Academia . . . The LSU Experience, ACRL 8th Na- tional Conference, Nashville, April 1997).