The Program for Cooperative Cataloging: Mission, Goals, and Potential for International Cooperation

Paper presented by Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian, Library of Congress, at the Cataloging Section Open Program, IFLA Conference, Beijing, China, August 27th, 1996)

BACKGROUND

In today's climate, libraries everywhere are confronted with an ever increasing number of materials to acquire and make available, but reduced funds necessitate hard decisions in allocating money for materials and other costs. In North America certainly, library directors have had to scrutinize their operations to insure that all are optimally cost-effective and to persistently seek opportunities to increase productivity without sacrificing service to users.

In this general effort to cope with tighter budgets, cataloging was among the first activities to become a target for potential savings, because of the high labor costs it has traditionally entailed. Indeed, in the United States, nearly every public, academic and special library has decreased the size of its cataloging departments during the past decade; some have even totally eliminated in-house cataloging by outsourcing all their acquisitions for processing. The Library of Congress (LC) has not escaped these budgetary pressures either; as staff retire, the positions they leave behind are unfilled. Turning necessity to virtue the Library has assumed a leadership role, joining forces with other libraries, in developing a strategy to deal with the "crisis in cataloging". This strategic response has as its goals to improve and streamline bibliographic-control operations in order to make them "better", "faster" and "cheaper" while producing "more".

PCC EXPLAINED

Our instrument for achieving these goals is the powerful new national and international coalition known as the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC).

Formally established in February 1995, the PCC is the culmination of nearly 30 years of cooperative activities by which the Library of Congress has sought to involve other institutions in sharing help with its cataloging mission. The earliest of these programs, CONSER (or Cooperative Online Serials Program) began to function under Library auspices in 1973. In 1977, NACO (or the Name Authority Cooperative) was established enabling an ever-increasing number of participating libraries to share ownership in the development of the National Authority File by contributing new or changed authority records (for both name headings and series). Then, in 1988 the Library launched the National Coordinated Cooperative Program (NCCP). This program enabled a small group of 12 libraries to join LC in creating full-level national bibliographic records, so that the total output could increase beyond the level which LC could attain with its own staff.

These initiatives proved successful to varying degrees with CONSER and NACO achieving the most impressive results. Yet, there developed a strong and widely held view that a new and less cumbersome approach to cooperative cataloging was needed in order to reach an operational output that would really enable the library community overall to re-focus resources. In November 1992, the Library invited a large number of experts to discuss this concern and to map a plan to deal with it. From these discussions emerged the Program Cooperative Cataloging Council, which was officially established in February 1995.

The Program is a formal coalition of libraries that have agreed to work together to increase the availability of unique records created under mutually acceptable standards; to facilitate the creation and use of these records; and to provide leadership in the information community. The coalition has experienced exponential growth with more than 200 members now enrolled representing all types of libraries. Participants can join the name-and-series authorities program (NACO) and the subject headings-classification proposal program (SACO) at the entry level. Once independent for the contribution of name authorities, participants may volunteer to contribute bibliographic records, thereby becoming BIBCO members as well.

The PCC is democratic in nature with most members having voting rights. Guiding the Program is an Executive Council, which includes permanent representatives as well as rotating representatives elected by the members to staggered terms. The permanent institutional members are the Library of Congress, the British Library, the National Library of Canada, the National Library of Medicine, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (an arm of the American Library Association), OCLC and the Research Libraries Group, with a liaison from CONSER.

The PCC Executive Council directs the strategic planning for the Program, establishes and monitors Program standards, promotes communication between the participants and the library community, seeks funding to support goals, and otherwise is responsible for high-level administration.

The Executive Council appoints on rotation two Operational Advisors from among the rank and file of catalogers working in participating institutions. On the basis of their cataloging experience and their professional activities and by monitoring electronic discussion lists, these advisors are responsible for keeping the Council informed about cataloging trends and technical developments.

In addition, the PCC administrative setup includes three standing committees to focus on standards, training and automation, because of the special importance of these areas to the Program's goals. Task groups are appointed as needed.

LC'S UNIQUE ROLE

This relatively simple administrative structure (Executive Council, Operational Advisors, Standing Committees) provides the basis for planning, setting policy and operational oversight. The Library of Congress has been appointed to act as secretariat and is responsible for providing the infrastructure by which the PCC will thrive and achieve its programmatic goals. This means that LC not only provides the means for the Executive Council to conduct its business, but also recruits new PCC members, arranges the training and documentation necessary to enable them to function successfully, establishes communications among the membership, gathers data for continuous evaluation, and in general acts to realize the PCC's mission and goals. The Library takes this significant responsibility most seriously: The Director for Cataloging is a permanent member of the Executive Council and in fact has served as the Council's elected chairperson since its formation. The chief of the Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division advises the director on daily operations and is accountable for the work of the Secretariat. In addition, the Cooperative Cataloging Team provides a personal interface with staff of participating institutions, assists with the duties of the Secretariat, and promotes the Program's expansion. Finally, the chief of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office is assigned tasks to accomplish PCC goals.

PROGRAM GOALS: MORE

How have LC and the PCC sought to realize the goals of "more, better, faster, and cheaper"?

With regard to the first, increasing the overall production of bibliographic data, last year the Library of Congress distributed about 235,000 new full-level bibliographic records and 42,720 minimal-level records; in fiscal year 1995, LC staff also created 114,000 name and series authority records and 6,950 new subject authorities. This level of output is considerably greater than the level just five years ago with increases in the neighborhood of 15% -- an accomplishment even more impressive given that cataloging staff has declined substantially -- about 20%.

Over and above these figures produced by LC are the bibliographic and authority records contributed by PCC libraries. Expansion is the Program's highest priority in support of its goal to "increase the timely availability of ...records by cataloging more items...." the PCC philosophy is to avoid undue burden on the few through the collective effort of the membership as a whole. The PCC has targeted increases in the work accomplished by participants such that they will achieve an annual collective production of at least 80,000 bibliographic and 150,000 authority records by the year 2000. These figures are on top of what LC produces.

Thus far, the Program has proved itself capable of achieving and sustaining this kind of growth. Name authorities processed through NACO increased from 66,000 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 92,000 last year; series authorities, often considered the most difficult aspect of record creation, increased 300%, as did subject heading proposals.

The bibliographic component of the program -- BIBCO -- is just now underway. It was inaugurated last September with a training program at the Library, but delayed until OCLC and RLG were able to implement encoding values that would identify the BIBCO records, so that utility users would be able to recognize them as national-level records equivalent to those produced by LC's catalogers. Even so, the Program expects the first year's BIBCO production to total around 15,000 records, and several major libraries are now processing most of their original cataloging through the Program.

Eventually, the PCC hopes that OCLC and RLG will implement a record exchange agreement so that contributions to either utility will be automatically available to the members of the other.

PROGRAM GOALS: BETTER

Catalogers and catalog users rightly advise that an ever firmer commitment to greater numbers should not come at the expense of usability of the records.

As a cost-savings measure, libraries throughout the U.S. have instituted administrative policies to reduce cataloging costs by accepting the cataloging produced by others whenever possible. Copy cataloging has been a fact of life in the American library community for many years, but increasingly so in the 1990's. Indeed, the Library of Congress is now a major consumer of cataloging produced by others. Last year LC processed 54,000 titles on the basis of bibliographic records created by others --up from only 1800 five years ago. We expect that figure to increase with the initiation of the BIBCO program.

Everyone agrees that in a copy cataloging environment the records which are shared should meet mutually agreed upon standards so that they can be processed as presented, without cataloger intervention, otherwise the savings are considerably reduced. For this reason, the PCC has established basic, but more flexible requirements which all contributors must meet. However, in doing so, the Program has made special effort to insure that these requirements do not prove burdensome as happened in some earlier cooperative program where some contributors experienced increased cataloging costs.

Widespread consultation with the American library community produced agreement on the essential elements of what is now called the "core-level" record. This is a record which is fuller than minimal-level but may be short of what is expected in full-level records. The "core-level" record normally contains the full bibliographic description, most fixed-field coding, and the most necessary entry points including one or two specific subject headings when appropriate as well as a standard classification number. But most notes may be dispensed with, and the full array of secondary entries is not mandated. The "core-level" is an option in the PCC, with contributors enabled to contribute their cataloging at either this level or full-level, as they choose. Core-level standards have been defined for books, serials, music scores, sound recordings, audiovisual materials and publications in non-roman scripts.

The PCC views the "core-level" record as one that can be accepted without modification but also one that is potentially dynamic, so that other members who encounter these records may enhance them depending on local priorities and resources. Initial tests of core-level record implementation concluded that cataloging productivity rose by 8.5% in one case and by 21% in another. To establish the cost-effectiveness of cataloging at this level for itself, LC has instituted an experiment designed to apply "core-level" treatment to some titles currently held in arrearage; at the same time, catalogers will begin to identify categories of publications currently received that might be adequately represented at the core-level -- for example, cookbooks, repair manuals, devotional literature. If other BIBCO catalogers wish to enrich these LC core-level records, RLG and OCLC have provided mechanisms by which they may do so.

The PCC Executive Council has also agreed that developing and maintaining mutually accepted standards involves a close look at the cataloging rules and related documentation in order to simplify them. The Council called upon LC's cataloging specialists to undertake investigative work in this area. As a result, the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) has already streamlined nearly 30 LC Rule Interpretations and canceled four more to support easier and more consistent application of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. In addition, CPSO has initiated review of the subject cataloging policies and procedures to facilitate work in this area as well. These efforts will make it easier for catalogers everywhere to perform their work while achieving today's functional requirements for bibliographic records.

PROGRAM GOALS: FASTER AND CHEAPER

With the volume of publishing ever intensifying and now more and more spilling over into non-traditional formats, especially in relation to electronic materials, cataloging goals of "more" and "better" must be balanced with currency and greater affordability. This is certainly the theme at LC where the Cataloging Directorate is engaged not only in arrearage reduction but also in maintaining currency with receipts. The PCC has also embraced this need for balance and has stated as one of its program goals to "promote the values of timely access and cost-effectiveness in cataloging".

To achieve this balance, a campaign has been organized to train catalogers to become more independent and self-reliant in performing work, to become more willing to take risks and exercise judgment when facing decisions. This message, -- the importance of catalogers assuming responsibility for judgement calls in cataloging to the mutually accepted standards -- has the effect of re-defining quality work so that it incorporates timeliness, because service to users has to be provided when the information is sought: what value is the perfect catalog record if it is not available when it is needed and at a price that can be afforded? This message is at the heart of the training which the PCC has developed and is now offering to the staff of Program members. To date, more than 20 representatives from PCC institutions have received this training; they in turn are now empowered to train other colleagues at their libraries and the libraries of other members.

Also assisting catalogers to become "faster" and "cheaper" are the cataloging simplification activities already described -- in addition to which user-friendly manuals are being written or revised to incorporate the new catalogers' values.

CONSER'S ACCOMPLISHMENT

Like PCC, CONSER has continued its efforts to provide usable standards for the cataloging of serials by defining a core record for printed serials, as well as core definitions for non-print and other special format serials, such as newspapers. The core standards are offered as alternatives to the full and minimal level standards set for CONSER. In addition, CONSER played an important role in identifying reductions and changes to the LC Rule Interpretations for Chapter 12 of AACR2, as noted above.

In addition to providing a database of over 750,000 authoritative records, CONSER and its associated U.S. Newspaper Program provide serial catalogers with easy to use tools that have become the standard for serials cataloging--the CONSER Editing Guide and CONSER Cataloging Manual. By sharing their serials cataloging expertise, program members aim to improve the level of all serials cataloging and the number of usable records available for sharing. Program participants most recently set guidelines for the cataloging of electronic journals in a special chapter of the CONSER Cataloging Manual.

Also closely associated with CONSER is the National Serials Data Program, a section at LC that serves as the US ISSN center. By assigning ISSN and adding the associated records to the CONSER database, NSDP catalogers supply an essential tool for access, identification, and control of serials.

INTERNATIONAL VENTURES

In the area of cataloging cooperation, LC's leadership role has reached beyond its contributions as the world's largest creator of bibliographic information and its vigorous promotion of PCC and CONSER goals and objectives. In the 1990's with advances in standardization and technology opening up new opportunities for international cooperation, LC began pursuing a strategy designed to enable it to increase the sharing and use of foreign bibliography and authority records.

One approach taken with impressive success has been to invite the national libraries of Great Britain and Canada to join in the work of the PCC, with both BL and NLC holding permanent seats on the Executive Council. In a major move to facilitate exchange of cataloging, LC, BL, and NLC are now focussing on reconciling differences in their MARC formats, toward the goal of aligning USMARC, UKMARC, and CANMARC into one Harmonized MARC by the year 2000. The Deutsche Bibliothek has also expressed interest in developing a strategy for overcoming differences in cataloging formats, demonstrated by its participation in the discussions that have been in progress.

Meanwhile, BL has begun contribution of name authorities to NACO, submitting more than 3,000 since early last year. Later this year, when BL will implement the next phase of its new automation system, it will begin expanding its NACO activity with 20,000 headings expected for Fiscal Year 1997 and more than double that figure by the end of the century. Cooperation between BL and LC took a giant step forward when the two institutions proved able to reconcile their interpretation of AACR2 in all areas except for a few where the existing file contained entries so numerous that they could not be changed at this time; but even in these areas there is a common understanding as to the best practice to follow when circumstances permit.

In addition to supporting NACO, BL also became an active contributor to SACO in 1993 when it reinstated use of the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales, Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and Trinity College, Dublin, have also joined SACO in order to contribute subject headings to LCSH. Other international partners that have joined SACO include the American Academy in Rome, the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies, the National Library of New Zealand, and most recently the National Library of Lithuania. This past spring, the State Library of South Africa and Bar Ilan University, Israel have contacted LC's Cooperative Cataloging Team to discuss their possible interest in becoming SACO contributors.

The PCC/LC international interests have produced a NACO project with the University of Newcastle in New South Wales which is considered preliminary to a full-scale relationship with the Australian Bibliographic Network once its new system is in place, projected for 1997.

Beyond forging working relationships with national bibliographic agencies and libraries abroad, LC sponsored formation of the Foreign MARC Coalition, a group composed of representatives from LC, the National Library of Canada, OCLC, RLG and ISM (Canada's largest bibliographic utility). The purpose of this group is to plan strategies for the most cost-effective arrangements for the acquisition, conversion, and re-distribution of cataloging data from foreign sources, both libraries and vendors. The Coalition has been meeting since 1992 to exchange information and coordinate activities. Today all of them hold large resource files rich in records from foreign sources. At LC, these records are regularly consulted by catalogers in the course of their daily activities.

BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION

Cooperative cataloging endeavors offer real and significant benefits to participants. Advantages offered by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, CONSER, and other cooperative programs include:

• More authority and bibliographic records are added to the distributed national and international databases.

  Because libraries use each other's cataloging to provide access to materials they have in common, they are able to catalog more items, increasing the number of unique original items added to databases.

• More dependable cataloging

  Use of a shared standard increases the reliability and predictable quality of the cataloging.

• More efficient cataloging

  Copy cataloging, or the use of bibliographic records created by other catalogers to a common standard, allows libraries to develop workflows that are streamlined. The records require less review, and support staff, rather than catalogers, can review and process the work.

• More timely cataloging

  Copy cataloging requires only a fraction of the time of original cataloging. When a library is able to increase its copy cataloging, it can process materials more quickly. In addition, it has increased capacity to process materials without copy more quickly.

• More cost-effective cataloging

  Copy cataloging is less expensive than original cataloging. In addition, the PCC requirement that all cataloging contain headings that are represented in a shared authority file increases the number of headings in the authority file, and reduces the total cost of original cataloging by distributing the labor-intensive and costly creation of authority records to a large number of participants.

• Better problem-solving through networking

  The network of catalogers creates a strong resource for resolving tough bibliographic issues.

• Access to expert training

  PCC participants have access to highly qualified trainers from a pool drawn from peer institutions, including the Library of Congress. Trainers first participate in "training the trainer" courses, and then "values" training in which cataloger judgment is stressed.

• Influence on national and international cataloging policies

  PCC and CONSER participants have a strong, coherent voice in the review and development of cataloging standards. Their recommendations have influenced the development of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, and have resulted in the review and streamlining of the LC Rule Interpretations.

• Cataloging staff are liberated to do other intellectual work

  The issues confronting those with expertise in the organization of knowledge have never been greater than they are today. We are moving rapidly into the description and analysis of electronic materials. Access to Internet resources has become an essential aspect of providing information. But, we cannot transfer our experience in cataloging traditional items such as books and serials wholesale into this new environment. We must find more efficient ways to control such traditional material so that we can turn our attention to the critical area of access to digital materials. Cooperative programs that help increase our efficiency and lower the cost of cataloging will free up highly trained professionals to explore new avenues of access.

CONCLUSION

The Library of Congress has long been a leader in cataloging. We created the MARC format and maintain it today. We develop and maintain both classification systems used in our libraries -- Library of Congress and Dewey. We serve as America's Cataloging in Publication (CIP) agency and develop and maintain the subject headings used in the U.S. and many other countries.

The role of LC in today's cooperative cataloging environment has increasingly become one of leadership through collaboration -- not the kind of leadership which directs bibliographic programs and activities of others or dictates how they should catalog -- this is not the American tradition -- but leadership that seeks common ground for solving common problems. The success of cooperative arrangements depends on the resources and expectations of the partners and on their ability to participate in setting goals and standards that they can in fact meet.

LC has contributed to the success of the PCC and CONSER by providing the impetus to encourage the partners to come together and agree on attainable goals and standards, by sharing in their vision of program expansion, and by lending the practical and necessary infrastructure that sustains daily operations. Congress has recently reaffirmed in the strongest possible manner the role of the Library of Congress as the national library, with strong centralized collecting and cataloging responsibilities. But is has done so on the assumption that we will continue to lead the effort to improve productivity and lower costs through collaboration in cataloging.

In closing I would like to call your attention to the Library of Congress Web Site which hosts the PCC, CONSER and NSDP home-pages and to invite you to visit them frequently in order to follow further developments in cooperative cataloging in the United States.