College and Research Libraries Are Patrons Ready for ''Do-It-Yourself'' Services? Nancy Larsen Helmick In very few libraries does funding increase proportionately to the demand for provision of services. If, however, restrictions prohibiting patrons from access- ing their own files are eliminated, enabling them to provide for themselves services formerly provided by library staff, will they willingly accept the challenge? In fact, the public does seem willing, even enthusiastic, about self-serve features, as evidenced by the results of an experiment in which the Ohio State University Libraries' automated circulation and online catalog system was programmed to accept patron-initiated renewal and save commands from library-housed and dial-access terminals. Attempting to forestall problems before they were created was essential to the planning, and the methods used are applicable to other libraries considering such enhancements. requently the strongest oppo- sition to change comes from within the institution or orga- nization being changed. In li- braries, practices and policies have rarely changed without dissension. A long de- bate, for example, raged over whether the public should have direct access to li- brary materials. Critics of this idea, most notably Melvil Dewey, feared the possi- ble chaos and potential thievery. Despite fears of anarchy and pandemonium, the shelves of the Cleveland Public Library were opened as early as 1890 by librarian William Howard Brett, who feared a dis- honest public less than the limitations imposed by keeping people away from books. With a belief in the basic integrity of the public, he countered critical argu- ments with the promise of better service. After shelves were opened, not only were long waits eliminated, but fewer books were lost and circulation increased as much as 44% despite a reduction of staff.l Such improvements to service were the primary goals the Ohio State Univer- sity Libraries (OSUL) sought to attain in 1970, when the stacks were opened to the entire university community and the Li- brary Control System (LCS), the auto- mated circulation and online catalog system, was introduced. Patrons were invited to search the Uni- versity Libraries' holdings for authors, titles, or subjects, using public terminals located in the main library and each of the department libraries beginning in 1974. In 1980, users with home or office computers and modems began to re- quest dial access to LCS. The complete holdings file, eventually to include order and processing records, was accessible to patrons using either public or personal computer terminals, ยท Nancy Larsen Helmick is Library Associate at the Ohio State University Libraries, Columbus, Ohio 43210. The author wishes to express appreciation to the following: Professors Jennifer Kuehn, Susan Logan, and Nancyanne O'Hanlon of the Ohio State University Libraries, and Keith M. Kilty of the Ohio State University College of Social Work. 44 but access to circulation functions was restricted to staff terminals. Patrons were encouraged to request a "save" (a term synonymous with "hold" at OSUL) for items in circulation, but doing so re- quired assistance from library staff, either at a circulation desk or via the libraries' telephone center, where callers often en- countered a queue or a busy signal. One reason for the difficulty in reach- ing the telephone center was that pa- trons were also trying to renew books. Patrons are permitted to renew books an unlimited number of times, but are ac- countable for maintaining a current re- newal status to avoid penalties for long-overdue materials. Since all circula- tion functions were suppressed at public terminals, patrons also needed staff as- sistance to fulfill this obligation. OSUL decided to allow the public to enter their own renewal and save transactions on a trial basis. Like many university libraries, OSUL perpetually operates on a less than ideal budget, trying to do more with less. At circulation desks, where the day-to-day operations already taxed the available staff, the influx of calls generated by the overdue notice mailings produced an even greater workload. The telephone center, limited by the number of staff who could answer the phones, had an alarmingly high number of abandoned calls, with many patrons hanging up in frustration before the staff could provide any service. To maintain the convenient service de- sired by the public without diminishing quality of service, the libraries needed either to increase staffing, equipment, and telephone lines or to create another solution. Choosing the latter option, OSUL decided to allow the public to enter their own renewal and save trans- actions on a trial basis. Assuming pa- trons would be willing to do so, and these options could be presented with- out an overwhelming collection of choices and documents, how might they "Do-It-Yourself'' Services 45 respond? Would the library system ben- efit or suffer in the effort? If the public response was demonstrably positive and the library benefitted by employing staff more efficiently, then perhaps en- hancements that allowed patrons to access other LCS features could be introduced with some assurance that patrons could be enticed to try them. This paper exam- ines the results of this venture. BACKGROUND OSU Libraries implemented patron- initiated renewal and save capability using LCS in the fall of 1989. Targeted users were OSUL patrons, including fac- ulty, employees, and students of the Ohio State University, users of the State Library of Ohio, and courtesy card pa:- trons-altogether, potentially more than 80,000 patrons. Because this audience has varying levels of computer skills, instructions had to be widely accessible and simply written. Because so many patrons wait until books are overdue to renew them, re- newal requests usually come in response to overdue notices. A guide was pre- pared to be sent with each overdue no- tice to assist patrons in resolving overdue problems. Since some patrons would be unable to access either a per- sonal or a library terminal, patron-initi- ated renewal was only one of several renewal methods described in the guide. The guide made no reference to the place- ment of saves. A brochure was distributed to request- ors of dial-access service and displayed at the public terminals. This brochure, "LCS Renewal and Save Instructions," was written with the assumption that the patron using it for renewal purposes might have a book but not an overdue notice in hand. The brochure also in- cluded instructions on how to place a save on a record retrieved during the course of a search. Aside from the style and the inclusion of save instructions, the two instructional aids differed in one other important way. The guide inserted with the overdue no- tice encouraged patrons to locate and to use title numbers (numeric computer-as- 46 College & Research Libraries signed identifiers) since our experience with telephone renewal requests was that the letter and number combinations of LC call numbers could be confusing. The brochure detailed renewal proce- dures using either call numbers or line numbers retrieved from a title search, and saves using call numbers only, but did not refer to title numbers. The results indicate that not only is the public eager to participate further but that libraries can benefit from a self-services policy without sacrific- ing quality of service. Regardless of which aid or method used, screen responses had to be carefully worded so that unsuccessful attempts would not dead-end. If the request failed, patrons should either be able to tell what went wrong and know how to fix it or be instructed that assistance from the circu- lation staff was necessary. 2 CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS Kenneth Dow lin described innovation as 11the process of creating small, incre- mental improvements on what is accepted today," but people commonly resist change. One source of resistance is the perceived threat of a loss of power. 3 The mere suggestion of enhancing LCS to allow patrons to enter their own renewal and save commands precipitated a vari- ety of skeptical reactions, including doubts about whether effective instructions could be written, concerns as to whether we were serving the elite or the masses, and fears that patrons might inadver- tently (or even intentionally) alter circula- tion records. Some staff members objected that the impact on library staff would be negative, with time that should be in- vested into ureal" problems being di- verted to explaining these services. Others objected to the appearance that we were attempting to shift our workload to the public. Only success would convert the doubters among the library staff. Preventing improper use of these transactions was an important concern. January 1992 The system needed to prevent one patron from unwittingly renewing another's books, since they might assume they had resolved their own overdue status. The renewal transaction was programmed to succeed only if the patron identification number were entered as part of the re- quest, and only if the number entered matched the one in the circulation file for that title and copy. Saves were even more problematic be- cause saves at OSUL are essentially de- layed check-outs. Even without public access to saves, we had witnessed and wanted to avoid 11prank" saves. We had also experienced the problem created when patrons placed saves on items al- ready checked out to themselves, gener- ating fines unnecessarily. To discourage saves from being placed maliciously, OSUL does not send via campus mail items saved at publicly accessible termi- nals; a picture ID card must be pre- sented. Inadvei:tently placed saves were avoided by programming the system not to accept a save when the request in- cluded an identification number that matched one already in the circulation file. METHODOLOGY To measure the public's acceptance of these capabilities, to determine which command type (and, therefore, which instructional aid) was most frequently used, and to assess the impact of these operations on staff activity, monthly transaction statistics of renewal and save activity from all staff, telephone center, and publicly accessible terminals were reviewed from the fall of 1989 through the summer of 1990. These statistics were then compared with statistics from the academic year 1988-1989, when the features were not available systemwide. As a matter of coincidence, the method of generating overdue notices had been changed in the fall of 1989 so that each patron class (faculty /staff and stu- dent/ courtesy card) received notices once every other month. All student patrons and courtesy card holders received no- tices in September, November, January, March, May, and July. Faculty and staff (including graduate teaching assistants) received notices in the alternate months. Therefore, to make the 1988-1989 popu- lation groups' statistics comparable to later statistics, months studied were com- bined into two-month segments (Janu- ary /February, April/May, July I August, and October /November), roughly reflect- ing the quarters of the academic year. FINDINGS Impact on Staff Activity Public reaction, reflected in the grow- ing use of the features as recorded in the transaction logs, seemed enthusiastic. More than 33,000 renewal transactions, over 13% of the total number of all re- newal transactions, were logged at pub- licly accessible terminals during the 1989-1990 academic year. Significantly more than 7,000 save transactions, over 19% of the total number of saves placed during the entire year, were placed at public terminals. During the four quarters before patron- initiated commands were introduced, the telephone center entered 197,928 of the 277,017 renewal commands entered sys- temwide, peaking at 75% by the end of the summer of 1989 and averaging 71% for the entire year. In the year after the public ter- minals were authorized to enter these com- mands, the telephone center handled 151,345 (60%) of the 251,884 total number of renewal commands. Using a standard t-test, this change was found to be statisti- cally significant at the .01level. Staff termi- nals (operated by library personnel, but excluding telephone center terminals) were affected, too, although to a lesser de- gree. In the academic year 1988-1989, staff terminals fielded 28% of the total number of requests; between fall of 1989 and fall of 1990, only 26% of the total number were entered at staff terminals. For 1988-1989, the percentage of re- newals entered at public terminals theo- retically should have been zero since public terminals were not programmed to accept renewal transactions before fall of 1989. However, the transaction logs used for this study did not distinguish between successful and failed attempts. Therefore, the handful of renewal trans- actions entered at public terminals dur- "Do-It-Yourself'' Services 47 ing 1988-1989 probably were failed at- tempts. In the summer of 1990, one year after the public terminals were author- ized to accept renewal commands, the percentage had risen to 16%. During 1988-1989, the preponderance of saves (roughly 85%) was entered at staff terminals. The number of saves placed at public terminals averaged 2%, although, as previously mentioned, some of these numbers represent failed attempts. However, since patrons in the Health Sciences Library have been able to place saves at public terminals since 1974, some of the save transactions can be assumed to have been successfully entered commands. Once patrons were able to place their own saves, the per- centage dropped steadily to 70% during the summer of 1990, and the percentage placed at public and dial-access termi- nals increasingly rose to 23%. The num- ber of saves placed at the telephone center, averaging 13% of the save trans- actions during 1988-1989, diminished to 9% during the summer of 1990. Command Preference As each record is added to LCS, it is assigned a title number, which is similar to an accession number in that it is com- posed entirely of numerals. We believed patrons would find a title number easier to use than a call number. To determine whether patrons actually did prefer using title numbers versus call numbers, statis- tics from dial-access terminals for the postimplementation period only were used. Libraries that had only one circulation desk terminal sometimes diverted activity to public terminals in order to minimize lines of patrons waiting for assistance at circulation desks. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which transactions at library public terminals were per- formed by patrons and which were en- tered by staff for patrons. Therefore, the dial-access terminals gave a more accurate picture of patron preference. The guide accompanying the overdue notice described and encouraged the use of title numbers for renewing materials, so it is not surprising that patrons used title numbers more often than call numbers 48 College & Research Libraries to renew books (56% of all renewal transac- tions were entered using title numbers). The brochure posted near public ter- minals and distributed to requestors of dial-access service, on the other hand, described the renewal procedure using call numbers. Patrons who may not have carried an overdue notice and the ac- companying guide to a public terminal would have used a brochure, so a fairly substantial number of renewals (32%) were entered using call numbers. The brochure was the only source of instruc- tion regarding the placement of saves. Since it described the procedures using call numbers only, the number of saves placed using call numbers was, natu- rally, quite high (88%). Copy-specific saves were discouraged (limited instruction was provided) and blocked for all patron classes except spe- cial library-coded identification num- bers to avoid the complications that could be created if saves were placed on serial volumes or newly added copies of titles, so those numbers were, as antici- pated, low (less than 3%). Obviously, a little instruction goes a long way, and patron education played an important role in the selection of com- mands. A more detailed breakdown of transaction logs, isolating the progres- sion from failed to successful or aborted attempt, was not used for this study, but would surely provide guidance in the preparation of other instructional aids or help screens and would provide a mech- January 1992 anism for future research in the area of patron instruction. CONCLUSION With surges in circulation resulting from open stacks and automated systems, it is apparent that patrons are eager for im- proved services, even if improvement requires greater efforts on their parts. Ultimately, however, it is not only the public who is intrigued by these fea- tures. Library staff will be encouraged to try more adventuresome experimenta- tion once they realize that the number of patrons served increases even as staff and equipment resources level off and the number of routine activities at staff- assisted stations decreases, allowing ex- pansion of services for more "needy" patrons. In his 1989 Library Journal article, Rich- ard De Gennaro writes, "We are entering a new era and the only way libraries can conserve what they have built in the past and perform their vital mission in the future is by innovating."4 The possibili- ties for expansion of self-serve features include touch-tone phone renewals and patron-initiated check-out using re- motely accessible terminals. Resistance and doubt, at least initially, can be ex- pected, but extended access is, as Ber- nard G. Sloan observed, a "logical, even inevitable, extension of on-site public ac- cess,''5 and we should make every effort to make services convenient, empower- ing patrons to use all available resources. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. C. H. Cramer, Open Shelves and Open Minds: A History of the Cleveland Public Library (Cleveland, Ohio: The Press of Case Western Reserve Univ., 1972), p.49-54. 2. Emily Gallup Fayen, You've Come a Long Way, Baby, But . . . . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ) ED 282 518, 1986. 3. Kenneth Dowlin, The Electronic Library (New York: Neal-Schuman, 1984), p.47. 4. Richard De Gennaro, "Technology and Access in an Enterprise Society," Library Journal 114:40, 42-43 (Oct. 1, 1989). 5. Bernard G. Sloan, "High Tech/Low Profile: Automation and the 'Invisible' Patron," Library Journal111:LC4, LC6 (Nov. 1986).