IFLA Conference, Audiovisual and Multimedia Section, on the theme of Herding Cats in a Dust-storm: Bibliographic Control of Audiovisual and

Multimedia Materials in a Time of Rapid Change

Organizational Structure of Handling Selection, Acquisition, Processing and Cataloguing of Physical and Digital Collections
Mun-Kew LEONG, Keat-Fong TAN, Wee-Seng TEO National Library Board, Singapore {mun_kew_leong, keatfong, wee_seng_teo}@nlb.gov.sg

Abstract:
The National Library Board (NLB) of Singapore had distinct departments handling the selection, acquisition, processing and cataloguing of library content. One department handled traditional physical (print) content. The other handled digital content, including databases and other electronic resources as well as donated items such as photograph, video and other new media items. This was a structure that grew organically in NLB due to the differing nature of physical vs. digital content, and the processes used to handle them. There are large libraries that have deliberately created two units, each distinctly trained, to handle the different content. There are also libraries that have merged the handling of the two kinds of content, creating policy and business synergies in the result. The current trends towards increased digital content, and the cited synergies in managing digital and physical content together prompted the NLB to initiate a small team comprising the authors of this report to look at the issues and to make a recommendation on which approach was suitable for NLB going forward, and what kind(s) of changes and administrative structures may be appropriate. As part of the effort, we designed a survey to ask libraries world wide for their current structure, policies and practices in dealing with digital vs. traditional content. Issues we asked about included the organization structure, the cataloguing policies and practices, and training. We also asked about problems and successes, especially where it pertained to handling digital vs. physical content. The survey was sent to 20 targeted national libraries, 10 top academic libraries, and a large mailing list of public libraries at the end of 2008. In this paper, we share the anonymized results of the survey, the analysis of the results and the resulting recommendation of possible structures and practices in handling digital and traditional content.

1. Motivation
There were two departments in the National Library Board, Singapore (abbrev. NLB henceforth) which handled the selection, acquisition, processing and cataloguing of library content. One department handled traditional physical (print) content. The other department handled digital content, including databases and other e-resources as well as donated items such as photographs and other media objects. The physical content was catalogued in MARC; the digital content in DC. Physical content was owned; digital content (in many cases) was merely licensed. Distinct workflows arose to cater to the two kinds of content. This was a structure that grew organically in NLB due to this differing nature of physical vs. digital content, and the processes that handled them. When we looked at our peers, we saw that there were large libraries that deliberately created two units, each distinctly trained, to handle the different content. There were also libraries that deliberately merged the handling of the two kinds of content, citing policy and business synergies in the result. There were strong elements of truth in both positions. New media content did not fall readily into traditional workflows, or even definitions. Digital photographs or videos are simple compared to issues such as cataloguing blogs. Should they be catalogued as a single blog or by entries? How about comments from readers, and replies from the author? Should these be threaded? These issues arising from new media make a strong case for distinct skill sets and mindsets. From the other perspective, there are strong business reasons for having a single unit handling both the physical and the digital. Efficiency is a big driver, from having a single organization structure, and a single budget, to reusable workflows and nonduplicated resources. From the technical perspective, there is an evident trend towards more digital assets and greater engagement of library patrons digitally. It makes sense to leverage the best of both worlds to provide better and novel services to patrons. A simple example: if one had 4 copies of a physical book and 20 library branches, where would you put the books? Four digital copies would solve that problem; as long as the number of simultaneous readers is four or less, patrons can get the books anywhere (and anytime). You also do away with the problem of book returns; digital copies can just expire and be thrown away, immediately being available for borrowing again. What was clear was that there was no obvious best structure or solution. The libraries on both sides of the argument are equally well respected, and, in their own context, their reasons for their organization structure and policies equally valid.

2. Background
A small team comprising the authors of this report was tasked with looking at the issues to make a recommendation on which approach might be suitable for NLB, and what kind(s) of changes and administrative structures may be appropriate. The team decided on the following approach: a) Interview the relevant departments within NLB, and also their respective managers.

b) Talk to visiting librarians, especially senior management, to understand their thoughts and what they had done in their own libraries. c) Talk to industry professionals such as Library Management System (LMS) vendors for their perspective. d) Survey national, academic and public libraries internationally to find out how they are managing the issue The internal interviews were useful to understand the similarities and differences in processes and mindsets. The following were notable: Staff handling physical materials were well aware of the trends towards the digital; and were ready to embrace change. As professionals, they were confident that they would easily adapt to new structures and workflows. The handling of digital materials and content was sufficiently novel that even the staff working in the area had not thought through many of the issues. New processes were regularly developed as needed. There are many more standards, formats, and concerns (such as digital rights management) in the digital realm than in the physical realm. There is also a much wider spread of access possibilities than for physical materials. The discussions with peer libraries were useful, and many of their positions are captured in the survey results below. The discussions with the LMS vendors were inconclusive. The team planned the survey based on the issues raised from the interviews and discussions above. The survey was then piloted within NLB, and the results (and analysis of results) used to change the questions and the way some of the questions were posed. The survey is explained in detail in the next section.

3. The Survey Questions

The first half of the survey was to understand how the library was organized with respect to the selection, acquisition, processing and cataloguing of the physical and digital content. In private conversations with other libraries, we find that many organizations have not thought about the issue at all. For those who have planned for the digital, there were those who kept them clearly separate, those who have merged them in structure but not in processes, and those who are in the early stages of having unified processes regardless of collection type. Thus questions were designed to survey the landscape and to gather a gamut of perspectives from the libraries, rather than ticking boxes in a quantitative survey. The second half of the survey focused on the cataloguing process. We wanted to know how libraries were cataloguing physical vs. digital content, what standards they were using, were they the same across content types, and why. Also, we wanted some open-ended questions to give respondents room to give opinions rather than just numbers to be counted. Each question in the survey was presented as follows:
No. Question Response (please use as much space as you need)

We distributed the survey as a Microsoft Word file to allow the type of responses to vary from question to question, and so that the respondents would not be constraint by physical limitations (e.g., small boxes) when they reply. We discuss each question in more detail below. Some questions are in several parts, and are numbered accordingly.

3.1 Organizational Structure of Handling Physical and Digital Collections

1. What type of functions do you support in your library? Please tick all that apply: [ ] National Library [ ] Reference Library [ ] Academic Library [ ] Public (Lending) Library [ ] Others: ____________________________

When we ran the pilot survey within NLB, we had feedback that the type of library would be significant in how digital and physical collections were handled. We had the same feedback when we discussed this issue with library software vendors.
2. Do you have a single group that handles both your physical and digital collection development? If yes, what advantages or synergies do you see in having everything done in a single group? If no, then how are you organized? (E.g., Do you separate your digital from your physical collection development? Or do you separate the different functions, e.g., selection, acquisition or cataloguing? Or is your current structure something that arose organically?) Please provide details. Please provide the organization chart of the relevant group or groups, showing how they relate to each other and the overall library organization. Please provide as an attachment in Word or PDF if possible. [ ] Yes [ ] No

2a.

2b.

2c.

This was the basic question to elicit the organization structure of the library, and to understand if that organization was the result of organic growth or was planned with consideration to the treatment of physical and digital content. We discovered in our pilot that an open-ended question did not tell us much about the thinking behind the organization structure, so the questions were recast in a more directed fashion. For 2c, we originally asked for a description, but the respondents gave us powerpoint diagrams instead, so for the survey, we asked specifically for attachments.
3a. In either case, do you see your structure changing in the next one year? What changes (in technology, mindset, etc.) would make you move to a new structure? What do you think is the optimal structure and why? [ ] Yes [ ] No

3b.

3c.

Given that the reason why we were conducting the survey was because we were looking at change, we also wanted to cater to the situations where the libraries were in a similar position. Based on our pilot where we got some open-ended feedback, we divided the question as above to address specific issues. In 3b, we wanted to understand the driving forces behind change, especially whether they were driven by technology or by changes in mindset. Question 3c was in response to discussions we have had with other libraries where there was no consensus on an optimal structure.
4. If you are a multi-type library (e.g., academic and public library), do you use the same group(s) to manage the different collections? If yes, what advantages or difficulties do you face in handling the different collections? In particular, are there differences handling physical and digital content? [ ] Yes [ ] No, please go on to Question 5.

4a.

This question was inserted based on feedback from the pilot survey. Again we are looking to understand the issues.

3.2 Cataloguing of Physical and Digital Collections

5. Do you catalogue your physical and digital resources differently? [ ] Yes [ ] No

This question was to address one of the fundamental reasons for the survey. We had discussed this issue in various forums and listened to a variety of views.

They spanned from the (perhaps!) ideal, where all content are catalogued identically, to the distinctly pragmatic, where historic structure, organic growth, or available resources dictate how content is catalogued.
6. Do you use the same underlying metadata format, e.g., MARC or Dublin Core for cataloging? If yes, what format are you using, and how satisfactory is it? Do you intend to change sometime in the future? If no, what formats are you using, and why? Can these formats be cross-walked in a lossless fashion? [ ] Yes [ ] No

6a.

6b.

This question drilled deeper into the issue. From our pilot we realized that an open-ended question was either too generic or addressed a different issue. We therefore broke down the question into the above, which we hoped was unambiguous.
7. Do you follow the same rigor in your cataloguing of physical and digital resources? [ ] Yes [ ] No

This was to address a congruent issue that arose with the discussions of digital content. As libraries collect digital ephemera (especially for historical or cultural reasons), there isnt the same degree of authority (in all its senses) in the metadata for these materials. We thought it would be interesting to survey the spread of opinion on this issue.
8. Do you have the same staff cataloguing physical and digital resources? If yes, what is their training and background? If no, then are they trained differently? How? [ ] Yes [ ] No

8a. 8b.

This continues from the previous question. One of the objectives of the survey was to understand the organizational changes that might be necessary, and this looks at the human resource aspect.
9. Have you used noncataloguing staff, or members of the public to [ ] Yes [ ] No

catalogue the collection?

One of the ways of alleviating a lack of human resources is to explore alternative models. This and the next question look at the idea of using non-professional catalogers, and we hoped to see new models and the libraries success with them.
10. Do you prefer maximum access with errors (e.g., tagged by volunteers) or delayed access with fewer errors (tagged by librarians)? Please provide reasons.

While following on from the previous question, we also wanted to survey the mindset in the libraries, whether that was changing.

4. The Survey
We had a choice of doing a quantitative survey (blast a survey to everybody and hope for a statistically significant number of responses) or to do a targeted qualitative survey and (politely) chase for responses. Since we were more interested in getting opinions especially about things we did not know (and hence could not ask quantitatively), we opted for the latter. Also, as the NLB has good relations with many libraries, we believed we could get a good rate of response from the libraries we asked. However, we did do a blast for public libraries. While we wanted a spread of libraries, we wanted in particular to survey the large national libraries which have been wrestling with similar issues, or which have talked about these issues in previous forums or in private conversation. We also wanted to include academic libraries, as they have more flexibility and may be more forward looking, and public libraries to get a sense of balance. Finally, we promised all respondents that we would keep all replies anonymous. We sent out the survey to 20 national libraries and 10 academic libraries, and chased them for responses. We also sent out the survey to a large number of public libraries (through their own network) but did not chase for responses. The survey was sent out in early November 2008, and we requested for returns by December 2008. We followed up for responses in January 2009, and finished the survey in February 2009. The survey was distributed as a Microsoft Word file. This was to allow email distribution (as an attachment) and also email response, and so that there would be no restriction on the length of the response for each question. As mentioned in Section 3, we also asked for attachments to show the organization structure. While we asked for Adobe PDF format, we accepted anything we could read.

5. Summary and Analysis of Results

We repeat the survey by the question structure below for consistency, and provide the aggregated responses, as appropriate, in the right hand column.

5.1 Organizational Structure of Handling Physical and Digital Collections

1. What type of functions do you support in your library? Please tick all that apply: [11 ] National Library [ 1 ] Reference Library [ 5 ] Academic Library [ 5] Public (Lending) Library [ 3] Others: Research Nat ional Archives State Library

We received a total of 23 responses to the survey. Some of the respondents ticked more than one of the above. Excluding the public libraries, we received 18 replies out of the 30 targeted libraries, giving us a 60% response rate. Given the number of libraries in the world, this does not provide a significant level of confidence as a quantitative survey. The intention, however, was to do a qualitative survey to understand issues, hence this is not problem for this study.
2. Do you have a single group that handles both your physical and digital collection development? [ 10 ] Yes [ 13 ] No

The survey showed that in our sample, 43.5% of the respondents had a single group handling the selection, acquisition, processing and cataloguing of both physical and digital content. From the responses to 2a (see below), it was also clear that the single group in all these cases was an integrated group, i.e., it was not just a single group in name but with disparate processes for physical and digital.
2a. If yes, what advantages or synergies do you see in having everything done in a single group? One team, united management, save resources, efficient, faster solution to problems (7) Same objective/conception, holistic development, single policy regardless of content type, physical migrating to digital (6) Records are integrated, management system more convenient (1) Greater job variety and staff development opportunities (1)

We clustered the responses roughly into the four groups above. The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of responses in each cluster. The numbers do not add up because respondents provided zero or more answers.
2b. If no, then how are you organized? (E.g., Do you separate your digital from By physical vs. digital (6) By domain specialty for e-resources (2)

your physical collection development? Or do you separate the different functions, e.g., selection, acquisition or cataloguing? Or is your current structure something that arose organically?) Please provide details.

By function/services (5) By language (3) In transition integrating digital workflows into physical (1)

We clustered the responses roughly into the four groups above. The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of responses in each cluster. The numbers do not add up because respondents provided zero or more answers. While there were five respondents that organized their structure by function/service, in some cases, those functions included a separate digital department. Three Asian libraries organized their structure by language first before further division. This was because the domain skills and experience for handling materials in a particular language were more important than whether they were physical or digital.
2c. Please provide the organization chart of the relevant group or groups, showing how they relate to each other and the overall library organization. Please provide as an attachment in Word or PDF if possible.

All 23 libraries provided either attachments or URLs to their current organization structure. These replies have been removed, as they would compromise anonymity. We had hoped to eyeball the structures to see if there were commonalities we could report, but discovered that we could not always understand the functions of the groups based on their internal organizational labels.
3a. In either case, do you see your structure changing in the next one year? [ 6 ] Yes [ 17 ] No

The survey showed that about 1/4 of the libraries in our sample were expecting changes in their organization structure. This was not surprising given that we had specifically targeted libraries that we knew were looking at these issues of physical vs. digital handling. The answers to this question were not linked to the next question, i.e., it was not only respondents who had answered yes to 3a that gave answers to 3b.
3b. What changes (in technology, mindset, etc.) would make you move to a new structure? Changes in library patron needs or library support services Expansion of digital collection and/or support for digital materials Improvements in scale/complexity handling digital content, digital becomes mainstream Radically reduce amount of printed material

Changes in copyright and digital rights Changes in technology Changes in financial circumstances

The replies to this question were fairly open ended. The above points are a summary of the aggregated replies. The clearest change that would result in a move to a new structure was in response to new needs (patrons or library) that could not be met by the current structure. Some responses suggested that this new need might be driven by the move towards digital content and the digital lifestyle of patrons.
3c. What do you think is the optimal structure and why? Physical and digital merged together (6) No single answer - depends on library and maturity of collection, needs of patrons, etc. (4) Digital and physical separate because skill sets are different (2) Flexible to handle (unknown) future (2) Collection development separate from technical services (1) Cost effective (1)

The responses in 3c had no correlation to 3a and 3b. Respondents seem to have understood it as a separate question. The responses were open-ended and summarized as above. The numbers in parentheses are the number of times that particular answer was mentioned or implied. A single respondent may have provided multiple answers. Please note, however, that six respondents indicated that the physical and digital should be merged while two respondents indicated the converse.
4. If you are a multi-type library (e.g., academic and public library), do you use the same group(s) to manage the different collections? [ 4 ] Yes [ 19 ] No, please go on to Question 5.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding with this question. Only two libraries out of the 23 indicated they were multi-type libraries (from question 1). Each of the four continued with question 4a below.
4a. If yes, what advantages or difficulties do you face in handling the different collections? In particular, are there differences handling physical and digital content? No major differences. Difficulty in acquiring needed skill sets. Collection in 14 languages difficult to have common standard Issues with digital content: o Lack of standards for delivery and access o Need for better federated search options

Need for better reporting

These were the four responses corresponding to the four yes in question 4. The first response is presumably in reply to the question on differences between physical and digital. The remaining are in reply to the difficulties handling the different collections.

5.2 Cataloguing of Physical and Digital Collections

5. Do you catalogue your physical and digital resources differently? [ 14 ] Yes [ 9 ] No

There was no correlation between the answers to 5 and 6.

6. Do you use the same underlying metadata format, e.g., MARC or Dublin Core for cataloging? [ 10 ] Yes [ 13 ] No

There seemed to be some misunderstanding in the replies to this question, based on the further elaboration in 6a and 6b. Some affirmative respondents to 6 continued and provided two or more formats in 6b. Some respondents gave replies to both 6a and 6b. The numbers above are corrected to reflect the responses in 6a and 6b. No numbers are given for 6a and 6b due to the potential misunderstanding of the question(s).
6a. If yes, what format are you using, and how satisfactory is it? Do you intend to change sometime in the future? MARC21 MARC (other flavours) MODS

The most used single format was MARC21, followed by other flavours of MARC. These are not further specified to ensure anonymity. MODS was used by one library. While we did not ask it, one library also indicated that they used AACR2, but were moving to RDA as it handles digital better than AACR2. Another response mentioned that the MARC format they used was less flexible than desired.
6b. If no, what formats are you using, and why? Can these formats be cross-walked in a lossless fashion? MARC and DC MARC and variety (MODS, DC, EAD, etc.) MARC and MODS

The most common response was a flavour of MARC plus DC, then MARC and greater than one format for digital. With regard to crosswalk, only one library responded that it used MARC to DC crosswalk. Several responses implied federated search (metasearch) in one form or another but did not specify whether it was over all collections (physical and digital).
7. Do you follow the same rigor in your cataloguing of physical and digital [ 14 ] Yes [ 9 ] No

resources?

While we did not ask to drill down, some respondents provided elaboration. One library used selective collection level descriptions. Also, while some responses have indicated yes (and are included in the number above), they made the exception for web archives.
8. Do you have the same staff cataloguing physical and digital resources? [ 11 ] Yes [ 11 ] No [ 1 ] n/a as all cataloguing is outsourced

The responses here are self-explanatory.

8a. If yes, what is their training and background? Qualified librarians; trained for the job

The replies here varied quite widely, including the type of professional degrees, etc., of the librarians. What was common, however, was that all the cataloguers were qualified professional librarians, trained in one way or another for the job. There were several exceptions noted which was copy cataloguing done by nonprofessionals.
8b. If no, then are they trained differently? How? Specific training for specific workflows Special skill sets Same qualifications for print and digital cataloguers

The responses here were that cataloguers were trained as required depending on their job or workflows. Specific workflows mentioned were mostly differentiated digital from physical. In other cases, the differentiation was not so clear; some seem to be functional but the functions seem to be digital-specific. One library made the point that regardless of workflow (digital vs. physical), the cataloguers had the same qualifications.
9. Have you used noncataloguing staff, or members of the public to catalogue the collection? [ 7 ] Yes For special collections Community tagging Outsourced [ 16 ] No

While the question asked for a simple yes-no answer, many respondents elaborated on their reply. In addition to non-cataloguing staff for copy cataloguing, the other areas where non-cataloguing staff was employed are as above. Special collections is a wide catch-all that included digital collections (such as photographs) and also electronic materials such as databases, netbooks, etc. In some cases these were outsourced. Some but not all libraries that reported using outsourcing had a quality check on results or processes. See question 10 for community tagging.

10.

Do you prefer maximum access with errors (e.g., tagged by volunteers) or delayed access with fewer errors (tagged by librarians)? Please provide reasons.

Fast access with no errors (3) Maximum access (6) Delayed access (8) Maximum access using nonlibrarians but with library quality control (4)

While we had implied there was an inevitable trade-off between fast access and errors, several libraries indicated this was not the case, and were putting in place new systems and processes to ensure that. Six libraries were willing to make content available even with poor cataloguing (some access is better than no access), while others are using non-librarians (including outsourcing) to increase speed while maintaining quality through quality control processes. One library reports demarcating librarian catalogued content from non-librarian catalogued content, and letting the patron decide on the quality of the metadata. Also, several respondents report that they were experimenting with community tagging. In all cases reported, these were in the evaluation stage, to determine whether community tagging could substitute for core cataloguing or could only be an addition to it.

6. Conclusions
Our targeted survey were libraries that had been looking at the issue of handling physical vs. digital materials. From the survey, about half the libraries were for separate groups, and half were for integrated groups. This implies that either strategy works in the current context. Reading into the detailed replies, however, suggests that as libraries move towards ever-greater digital content and interaction, it is more important to have a planned strategy for handling digital content than what that strategy is. On the cataloguing side, every combination of method, standard, and rigor could be found in the responses. It was clear that physical materials will continue to be catalogued using MARC (of one flavour or another) but there is yet to emerge a de facto standard for cataloguing digital content. While DC is the most common, it is not a majority. Libraries are not compromising on the quality of their catalogue, but are pragmatic in accepting that different kinds of data (mostly digital data) can be satisfactorily catalogued to a different standard (or rigor). The aim seems to be to provide fast uniform high quality access for their patrons. Efforts to leverage the community to help cataloguing or tagging are still in early stages. Libraries are clearly wary of these efforts, both in terms of cataloguing quality as well as long-term viability.

Brief Biography of Authors:

Dr Mun-Kew Leong is CTO and Deputy CIO of the National Library Board, Singapore. He is responsible for ensuring the alignment of IT to business strategy, and for helping guide future technology directions for the organization. Prior to that, Mun Kew was Principal Scientist and Programme Director for Services Research at the A*STAR Institute for Infocomm Research. From 1999 to 2001, Mun Kew was VP and CTO at an IT startup delivering custom distributed deep search technologies and services. His personal research was in multimedia semantics, information retrieval, mobile and social information management, educational technologies, digital libraries and distributed multilingual search systems. He has published and patented in these areas, and is an invited speaker at many talks. Mun Kew received his PhD from Stanford University. He has more than 20 years of R&D and commercial experience in IT. He serves as a member of the Advisory Board for the School of IT at Temasek Polytechnic, the steering committee of the Singapore Bio-Imaging Consortium, the advisory board of the AIRS Symposium series, was Chair of the ISO Working Group on Jpeg Search, and was formerly Adjunct Assoc. Prof at the National Institute of Education. Mrs Keat-Fong Tan is Deputy Director, Professional & International Relations and Regional Manager, IFLA Regional Office for Asia and Oceania, at the National Library Board, Singapore. In her many years of service with the National Library, she has had the opportunity to work in a variety of libraries in Singapore, including the National Library of Singapore (later called the National Library Board of Singapore in 1995) and run a range of libraries, from public, college, special in addition to the national library. She also served as Head, Singapore Integrated Library Automation Service, (or SILAS this is NLBs National Bibliographic Services to Singapore libraries) and Assistant Director, Library Support Services (or better known as Technical Services in most libraries). During the past 6 years of her career, she led several local and international community book donation projects. In these roles, she worked very closely with the Library Association of Singapore, the Congress of Southeast Asian Librarians (CONSAL), and with several of our MOU partners and friends, such as the National Library of China, Shanghai Library, Korea and Australia National Libraries, British Library and others. She has extensive experience working in committees that cuts across functional groups and across libraries, and in building networks, and relations with the local and international library community. She recently received from the President of Singapore the Public Administration Medal (Bronze) during the 2008 National Day Awards. Mr Wee-Seng Teo is Director, People Management and Development, at the National Library Board, Singapore. He is responsible for positioning the NLB as a competitive, innovative and forward-looking employer to attract and retain talents. Wee Seng has more than 20 years of HR professional experience. For many years, he was a organization change consultant, helping organizations to manage change, build organization competencies as well as performance management capabilities. Prior to his current appointment, he was Director Personnel Policy of the Public Service Division, Prime Ministers Office that oversee the development of HR policies for the whole Civil Service.