SELECTS ON- LINE
65 Soulh Front
43215 'i14p, 0 <
This report describes the State LibraPY~ 'We
automated acquisitions 8y8temB~ the LIBRIS (Library
Info~ation Services) system of Baker & Taylor and
BrodaPt 's OLAS (On-Line Aaquisitians Systems) . The
library tested the systems in a side-by-side work
environment over a three-month period (Octobe~December~
At the concLusion of the study the State Library reviewed
both systems based on the library 's acquisition needS.
WhiLe the State Library then selected the LIBRIS system
for reasons detailed in the narrative which folZOW83 it
empnasiu8 that a lihra:t>y considering an automated
aaquisitwn.a system should determine the major factors
required in its own operation in order to make a vaLid
The State Library ' s acquisitions program is unique in that it combines two
basic collections, thus providing a wide diversit y in the type of materials acquired
. The library's main collection includes non- fiction , technical, reference, and
research materials . The collection for the State Library's field units is comparable
to that of a small or medium- sized library with a general collection ,
including fiction and non-fiction materials.
The study evaluated both the LIBRIS and OLAS systems in seven major a reas: up
time, data base size, ease of access , on- line acquisitions s t orage file , fund accounting,
overall turn around time, and cost.
Reliability is an important factor in the evaluation of a computer system , and
the two systems were relatively equal in the hours of availability. Based on 384
hours of availability, LIBRIS was up 97 percent of the time, and OLAS was up 94
The size of the data base ultimately results in the number of hits or usabl e
records in the system . Here OLAS showed a slight advantage over the LIBRIS system.
Hit rate for the State Library ' s main collection was 67 percent for OLAS, compared
to 54 percent for LIBRIS. OLAS's hit rate for t he State Library's field. units was
64 percent, while LIBRIS was 67 percent. Ccontinu.d}
In This Issue
A Journey through Ohio's Institution Libraries .... .• . . . . . . .• • ... .. 35 !
An Equal Opportunity Employer -33-