Search results

Of all first generation automated storage and retrieval (AS/R) systems installed in libraries in the United States, the most complex and ambitious installation was at the Health Sciences Library at Ohio State University. The system was designed to have twelve aisles, but only eight were installed, along with four calling stations/circulation desks located at both ends of the machine on each of two floors of the library. The system, which originally cost $811,799, required constant maintenance resulting in expenditures of $889,191 through June 1990, plus $139,575 for conversion/renovation of the system in recent years. In 1989, the university made the decision to remove the Randtriever in conjunction with anticipated expansion and renovation of the library. A sidebar by Eric Jayjohn compares the Rand‐triever with contemporary AS/R technology.

While the analysis of inter‐institutional collection overlap has become the profession's current analytic “hoola hoop,” the correlation of book collection to curriculum has the “acrid stench” of tampering with purse strings, and is studiously avoided. However, the analytical comparison of library holdings to constituencies being served could provide meaningful insights related to priorities and practices. This article describes and illustrates a method for analyzing this relationship.

Since their public debuts in the 1960s, thousands of automated storage and retrieval (AS/R) systems have been installed in industrial settings across the United States and Western Europe. These units provide secure, controlled storage and rapid retrieval for inventories that range from computer components to major sub‐assemblies for fighter aircraft. However, until the current installation of an AS/R at California State University, Northridge, only four previous installations were made in the United States and one in Europe. All these earlier systems experienced serious problems, resulting in their removal at three libraries in the U.S., with the remaining U.S. site currently planning to remove its system. These failures have conditioned librarians to avoid such systems, despite significant differences in contemporary technology. Kountz describes the early systems and analyzes what went wrong with them, and why.

The annual operating costs for traditional libraries can be shown to be greater than the cost to distributing a portable computer and related sources of electronic information to each library user in the academic environment. For public libraries, opportunity to reach the disadvantaged are inherent in this and other developments in the delivery of information. A time frame for the emergence of an information appliance—the tablet computer—capable of supporting the required information traffic, is presented and a model is developed to predict the migration of content from paper to electroform for each subject discipline. As one viable approach to library planning for the coming “new” information environment, the author suggests converting the “central library” into an “electronic information distribution center” that can support users regardless of physical location, while also incorporating automated storage and retrieval facilities to minimize warehousing costs for residual hard copy materials. The economical provision of information SERVICE is the objective; not greater staffs, collections of little used materials, and buildings.

A real potential exists for library use of voice technologies: as aids to the disabled or illiterate library user, as front‐ends for general library help systems, in online systems for commands or control words, and in many of the hands‐busy‐eyes‐busy activities that are common in libraries. Initially, these applications would be small, limited processes that would not require the more fluent human‐machine communication that we might hope for in the future. Voice technologies will depend on and benefit from new computer systems, advances in artificial intelligence and expert systems to facilitate their use and enable them to better circumvent present input and output problems. These voice systems will gradually assume more importance, improving access to information and complementing existing systems, but they will not likely revolutionize or dominate human‐machine communications or library services in the near future.

Automated material‐handling techniques have been successfully applied in industry for over a decade. The techniques and systems developed to automate warehouse operations directly apply to libraries. The problem of storing a growing mass of little used but “valuable” materials can be resolved by new material handling strategies, which will also generate improved library services. The characteristics of a miniload automated storage and retrieval system are described, and formulas are presented for calculating the size of system needed by a library. Also included are “rule‐of‐thumb” prices for calculating the approximate costs of a system of a specific size.

An overview is provided of the global electronic access changes currently impacting upon library operations. The consequences for library structure and operating environments are outlined, with particular reference to developments at the Australian National University.

Library storage is traditionally viewed as a space management strategy, a way of dealing with overcrowded buildings and growing collections. Storage also is implicitly a preservation strategy: an alternative to weeding, cramming books tightly on shelves, stacking them on the floor, or not purchasing them in the first place. Among its obvious preservation benefits, storage provides security from theft and vandalism, and protection from spills and pests caused by increasingly prevalent food and drink in library buildings. Although transfer to storage may be risky for fragile materials, leaving them in stacks that are constantly being shifted is likely to be more damaging. Many storage facilities provide better environmental conditions for collections than old or poorly maintained modern library buildings.

A relatively unique feature of the Bruce T. Halle Library at Eastern Michigan University is the automated retrieval collection. It contains materials which were published prior to 1990 and had not circulated since 1994. This storage system is incredibly efficient because almost all items are stored randomly, and it has been well received by the campus community and the staff.

Penniman describes a mission and vision for the library of the twenty‐first century that go far beyond document delivery. He proposes that the real mission of the library is to help present and future generations of citizens become independent problem solvers—who have available, and know how to use, information tools to address the challenges that face them. To help fulfill this mission, he proposes that libraries seek a vision that can be realized with the help of technology: to create a universal window to the vast array of information held by our libraries and to offer this window to the widest possible audience.