Introduction
Feature article
The ISO 11620 standard
and library automated
systems
Jack O’Farrell
The author
Jack O’Farrell is a Senior Lecturer, Liverpool Business
School, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
This paper is based on research carried out in Liverpool
John Moores University, and investigates the capability of
three library automated systems to generate datasets
necessary to form the ISO 11620 draft standard on perfor-
mance measurement in libraries. Gives background to the
standard and details how the Talis, Dynix Classic and
Innopac systems can generate the datasets. Concludes
that the systems are weak in generating the necessary
management data.
New Library World
Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · pp. 254–259
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0307-4803
254
This paper is based on research carried out at
Liverpool John Moores University which
examined the applicability of the ISO draft
standard on performance measurement to
academic libraries. Three academic libraries
were included in the research, each of which
uses a different Library Automated System
(LAS), namely: Dynix Classic, Innopac and
Talis. Only the datasets which could possibly
be obtained from an LAS are discussed in this
paper, those which require totally manual
data collection methods are not included.
Background to the ISO draft standard
The International Standards Organisation
(ISO) is a large non-governmental organisa-
tion which began its work shortly after World
War II. Initially the work of ISO lay primarily
with technical and mechanical topics, but
today all sectors are included. At present there
are over 9,300 different standards.
ISO comprises more than 180 Technical
Committees (TCs) with a number of subcom-
mittees attached to each TC. The Library and
information sector falls within the remit of
TC 46 (Information and Documentation)
which has the following subcommittees:
• SC2 conversion of written languages;
• SC3 terminology;
• SC4 computer applications;
• SC8 Library statistics and performance
evaluation;
• SC9 presentation, identification and
description of documents;
• SC10 physical keeping of documents.
SC8 currently has four standards of which
ISO 2789 (for library statistics) is the most
widely used.
The question of devising a performance
measurement standard for libraries was raised
in 1989 at a meeting of SC8 and within two
years a working group led by Charles
McClure conducted a feasibility study from
which emerged the intention to create such a
standard. National experts from eight coun-
tries were represented on the working group.
The main areas addressed by this working
group determined whether the standard should
be applicable to libraries of all types, how the
standard should differ from the various perfor-
mance measurement manuals in existence,
how the standard should enable international
 The ISO 11620 standard and library automated systems
Jack O’Farrell
comparisons, and finally, how to solve the
problem of terminology and definitions.
The Structure of ISO 11620
The standard is divided into two parts, the
first being the standard itself and the second
being three annexes. The second annex con-
tains the 29 performance indicators forming
the overall standard and these indicators are
grouped into three sections:
(1) User perception;
(2) Public services;
(3) Technical services.
The description of each indicator contains the
following sections:
• objective;
• scope;
• definition of the indicator;
• method (of collection);
• interpretation and factors affecting the
indicator.
At the time of writing (June 1998) the stan-
dard is still in draft form but according to
Jakob Harnesk of the Royal Library in Stock-
holm it may be officially published in Autumn
1998 (Harnesk, 1997).
ISO 11620 and library automated
systems
One of the main reasons why university librar-
ians are unwilling to commit to regular perfor-
mance measurement exercises is the amount
of staff time and resources that is involved in
collecting the necessary datasets (Goodall,
1988). In general, the perceived benefits of
performance measurement do not justify the
required inputs of staff time and energy, and
therefore librarians will not dedicate staff to
management information gathering.
Consequently, if performance measurement
is going to develop in libraries, a greater
reliance will have to be put on the library auto-
mated systems within libraries. The ISO draft
standard includes the method of data collec-
tion for each indicator and some of the indica-
tors include a method using the library auto-
mated system to collect data. The databases
forming these indicators have been extracted
from the standard and are discussed below in
light of the following three automated systems:
(1) Dynix classic;
(2) Innopac;
(3) Talis.
255
New Library World
Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · 254–259
Where applicable, the three library automated
systems will be investigated to determine if
they can generate the datasets necessary to
form the indicators.
Number of active borrowers / number of
members in target population
The datasets for this indicator comprise the
number of members of the population served
related to either the number of active users or
the number of active borrowers.
The number of active borrowers is
obtained from the Dynix Classic system by
interrogating the database using a RECALL
statement as follows:
COUNT PATRONS WITH LASTUSE
GE “O1 JAN 1998”
The result of this query is expressed as a
percentage of the total population. This figure
has to be obtained from the university’s
records if the LAS does not contain all users
in the university.
This indicator can, if required, also be
applied to a target group within the popula-
tion by the following RECALL command
from the Dynix Library system which counts
active borrowers since January 1998 who are
classed as Information Technology students:
COUNT PATRON WITH PSTAT = “IT”
AND LASTUSE GE “01 JAN 1998”
The Innopac system creates LISTS of records
which are pre-set and new lists cannot be
customised according to a library’s specific
requirements. The total members of popula-
tion served is automatically generated by the
system, as is the number of active borrowers.
With the Innopac system it is possible to
extract the data and manipulate it in another
software program.
The Talis system runs on a Sybase data-
base which means that if the required data is
stored in the database, it can be extracted into
another piece of software, even if the Talis
system cannot itself manipulate the data.
Number of documents in stock
All three LASs can generate this dataset. The
Dynix Classic does not automatically generate
the figure but it can be obtained with the
following RECALL statement: COUNT
HOLDINGS. The Innopac system generates
the dataset automatically as part of its report-
ing as does the BLCMP Talis system.
 The ISO 11620 standard and library automated systems
Jack O’Farrell
Number of documents in lending
category
This dataset can be obtained from all three
LASs. The following RECALL statement in
the DYNIX system counts all holdings in the
collection which can be loaned to users:
COUNT HOLDINGS WITH ITYPE =
“O” OR WITH ITYPE = “EXAM” OR
WITH ITYPE = “ML1” OR WITH
ITYPE = “RFT” OR WITH ITYPE =
“RL3” OR WITH ITYPE = “RPT”
The statements in Talis and Innopac are
similar whereby a search for the number of
ITEMS in the database with a particular
lending category is processed. This method
could be used to count the number of docu-
ments in any part of the collection.
Number of unissued documents
All three LASs can generate this dataset. This
dataset is not actually required to form an ISO
indicator but it is suggested as being a desired
dataset if the collection is to be properly mon-
itored. The Dynix system uses this statement
to select lending material:
SELECT HOLDINGS WITH ITYPE =
“O” OR WITH ITYPE = “EXAM” OR
WITH ITYPE = “ML1” OR WITH
ITYPE = “RFT” OR WITH ITYPE =
“RL3” OR WITH ITYPE = “RPT”
where O, EXAM, ML1, RFT, RL3 and RPT
are all categories of lending material in the
university’s library. A sub-statement is then
run to count the number of documents never
issued:
COUNT HOLDINGS WITH USE = “0”
The Innopac system can run a cumulative
count for all years to count unissued docu-
ments or can specify a range of years, as can
the Talis system.
Number of library visits
Only one of the libraries in this research uses
an automated gate count system. Up to Janu-
ary 1996, that university library used a tradi-
tional turnstile to count the numbers of peo-
ple leaving the library. This system was sus-
ceptible to the normal margin of error of the
system by people holding the gate open for
other users and also the fact that more than
one person can be standing on the sensor pad
at the one time. The figures from this turnstile
were manually counted every month and
256
New Library World
Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · 254–259
entered in the library’s regular statistics. It is
from these statistics that the figure was
obtained.
A new access system was installed and is
now operational within the library which
requires visitors to use an ID card to gain
entry. This system will provide a more accu-
rate count of library visitors and will also
provide analysis of visitors by user group and
frequency. The system runs off a stand alone
computer which is not linked to the library
automated system and therefore it requires its
own database in order to generate usage
reports and trend analyses of particular user
groups.
Of the other two libraries surveyed, one
uses a turnstile count and the other does not
maintain the dataset at all.
Number of loans
As would be expected this dataset is available
from all three LASs. The dataset is available
from Innopac in the Circulation statistics but
it has to be extracted into another software
package to manipulate it. A particular period
can be specified. The figure is also automati-
cally generated as part of the normal report-
ing procedure in the Dynix and Talis sys-
tems.
Number of documents currently on loan
This dataset is obtained from the Dynix Clas-
sic system by the following RECALL state-
ment:
COUNT CIRC.OUT
The other two systems can also collect the
dataset. The Innopac system counts those
documents on the ITEM list where the O6
field (Due Date) has a positive value. The
Talis system has a similar count.
Number of documents used in-house
None of the systems can calculate this dataset,
but Innopac could read and interrogate data
collected from handheld bar-code readers
which shelvers would use to scan documents
on the shelves. This data could then be
manipulated in the Innopac system.
Number of remote uses
The Dynix Classic and Innopac systems
cannot collect this data accurately. The Talis
system can determine uses by Telnet access
but cannot determine whether those uses
were from off or on-site users.
 The ISO 11620 standard and library automated systems New Library World
Jack O’Farrell Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · 254–259

Staff time spent on cataloguing/staff time manual count of these is maintained as part of
spent on amending records that university library’s regular statistics. This
None of the three systems provide any man- count is added to the result of the RECALL
agement information on the activities of staff statement which provided the total number of
or in what areas the workload is heaviest. titles in the library:
COUNT BIB
Number of titles catalogued
There are similar issues in the other libraries
All three systems can generate this data. The
whereby the whole collection is not main-
three systems use similar bibliographic record
tained in the electronic catalogue. These
constructions where one field relates to the
limitations must be kept in mind when the
date the item was catalogued. In the Innopac
dataset is calculated because it is not com-
the field is O4 and a specific time period can
pletely accurate.
be specified to count the number of titles
catalogued during that period. There are
Publication date of document
problems with the indicator that this dataset
This dataset is not necessary to form an ISO
goes to form because the other necessary
indicator but is recommended for properly
datasets are not available from the library
monitoring stock to check the age of the
automated systems. Consequently, although
stock. All three systems can generate this
this dataset is available, the indicator would
dataset as it is part of the bibliographic record
have to be calculated by sampling and manual
of each document.
data collection.
Date of ordering document/date of
Number of titles in stock
receiving document
The three systems can calculate this dataset.
The three systems can generate these datasets
The Dynix RECALL statement is simply
which form the ISO indicator “Speed of
COUNT BIB but the resulting dataset should
acquiring documents”. A possible dataset for
be examined to verify the limitations of this
this indicator is the Actual Date of Document
calculation. The Innopac and Talis systems
Publication. This dataset is not necessary to
automatically include this figure in generated
form the indicator. As part of the research
reports.
methodology and the interview process
library staff consulted believed that if any
Number of available titles
sizeable sample was to be used for this indica-
The three LASs examined can generate this
tor it would prohibit the collection of this
figure but, as with so many libraries, not all of
dataset since the information would probably
the collection is recorded on the automated
have to be collected by contacting document
system. The following statements detail the
suppliers.
way this apparently simple dataset can be
For the Dynix system the datasets which
acquired using the Dynix system:
are necessary were obtained from the library’s
The first statement provides how many
automated system by the following RECALL
titles were checked out on the circulation
statement:
system:
SORT ACQ WITH
COUNT BIB WITH T-STATUS = “O”
DATE.ADDED.CONV = “[OCT 1997”
The number of documents missing also have AND WITH DATE.RECD DATE.
to be counted, this could be either a separate ADDED.CONV DATE.RECD.CONV
RECALL statement or could be included in FILL.TIME BY FILL.TIME
the one above:
When the result of this query was printed it
COUNT BIB WITH T-STATUS =
produced a list of every document ordered
“MISSING”
during October 1997. The median fill time
The total number of titles cannot be obtained (difference between the date the document
by a simple RECALL statement. The vast was ordered and the date the document was
majority of titles are maintained on this received) had to be obtained manually by
library’s automated system, but students’ going through the list. If this could be auto-
theses and companies’ annual reports are not. mated, a median fill time could be obtained
These, however, are kept in the Reference for all documents ordered in one year rather
collection and are not available for loan. A than just one month. The process of obtaining
257
 The ISO 11620 standard and library automated systems
Jack O’Farrell
a median manually can be tedious and going
through a whole year’s orders would be pro-
hibitive. The Innopac and Talis systems pre-
sent the same problem. The individual
datasets are available but the calculation
needed to determine the median time needs
to be done manually or the data needs to be
extracted to another software system. The
Innopac system can provide information on
vendors which will provide the average num-
ber of days / weeks each vendor has taken to
deliver material.
Date of cataloguing document/date of
bindery preparation of document/date of
binding of document/date document is
dispatched
These four datasets are those specified in the
ISO standard but other datasets could be
added between the first and last datasets,
depending on the processes in each library.
The three library systems could generate the
first and last datasets but could not generate
those in between. Unfortunately, it was this
level of detail that the librarians believed
would be most useful in order to determine
where exactly any delays or problems were
occurring. The only method of collecting data
for this indicator in the three libraries (unless
the automated systems were customised)
would be by a manual method; that is to
design a form containing date fields for each
step in the process and then to trace the
progress of each document in the sample
week. This method would lose the advantage
of collecting the data retrospectively.
Date document is requested for ILL / date
document is ordered for ILL / date
document is received for ILL / date user
is notified for ILL
All three libraries included in this research use
the Lancaster automated system for Inter
Library Loans. All the datasets necessary for
this indicator can be retrieved from the Lan-
caster system. The indicator lists four
datasets:
(1) Date of receiving request from a user.
(2) Date of receiving document from an
external source.
(3) Date of ordering document from an
external source (optional).
(4) Date of notifying the user (optional),
If the results of this indicator were to be one
hundred per cent accurate, items would have
258
New Library World
Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · 254–259
to be tracked individually. This loses the
benefit of being able to carry out the search
over a long period of items and also loses the
benefit of carrying out the search retrospec-
tively.
Two datasets (for each document) needed
to be retrieved from the system, the date the
document was ordered and the date the docu-
ment was received. The former is the closest
that can be obtained to the date the user made
the request.
The following are the commands used to
retrieve the records from the automated ILL
system:
(1) SELECT REQUESTS WITH
DATE.APPL GE “13 NOV 1997” AND
LE “17 NOV 1997”
This selects all records in the
REQUESTS file ordered in the sample
period.
(2) SAVE-LIST REQ.APPL
This saves the records selected in step 1
into a file called REQ.APPL
(3) SELECT ARCHIV WITH DATE.APPL
GE “13 NOV 1997” AND LE “17 NOV
1997”
This selects all records in the ARCHIV
file ordered in the sample period.
(4) SAVE-LIST ARC.APPL
This saves the records selected in step 3
into a file called ARC.APPL
(5) CLEAR-FILE DATA ARCREQ
This clears the ARCREQ (a temporary
file) of any previous records stored there.
The following set of commands obtains the
two files created in steps (2) and (4) and
copies them to the ARCREQ file where these
combined records can then be manipulated
and searched simultaneously:
(6) GET-LIST REQ.APPL
(7) COPY REQUESTS (to) (ARCREQ
(8) GET-LIST ARC.APPL
(9) COPY ARCHIV (to) (ARCREQ
All the documents ordered in the sample week
are stored in the ARCREQ file which could be
interrogated using the standard ACCESS
commands. The Lancaster system provides a
standard function called TIME.SUPPL
which is the difference in days between the
days of ordering and the days or receiving the
documents. Commands such as the following
counted the number of documents received
within certain periods:
 The ISO 11620 standard and library automated systems
Jack O’Farrell
COUNT ARCREQ WITH TIME.SUPPL
LE “7”
This command, for example, counted the
number of documents received within a one
week period of ordering. Simply replacing the
digit “7” with 14, 21 or 28 would determine
the number of documents received within
two, three or four weeks respectively.
The commands could be run to determine
the speed of delivery over the whole year
rather than just a sample week but it could be
a slow process to retrieve the information. As
part of this research the researcher carried out
the sample searches detailed above. Selecting
and copying the sample records to the
ARCREQ file took twenty-five minutes,
excluding actually interrogating the created
file; a faster computer, however, would doubt-
less speed up the process, the stand-alone
computer running that Lancaster system was
running at the now outdated 33Mhz.
Summary
There are two main types of datasets generat-
ed by the library automated systems examined
in this research. One type can give a “snap-
shot dataset” and the other a dataset repre-
senting figures over a period of time. The
Dynix Classic system is the oldest LAS of the
three but disappointingly neither of the two
newer systems is any stronger in providing all
the management information. BLCMP Talis
is a client-server system but of the three this
system appears to be the weakest in providing
the datasets necessary to form the ISO indica-
tors.
It must be noted that although the systems
can generate some of the datasets (as in the
date of ordering and receiving documents) the
systems cannot always calculate the necessary
indicator. Such data has to be extracted into
another software package or calculated manu-
ally.
The information presented above seems to
give quite a promising outlook as the majority
of the datasets seem to be generated by the
259
New Library World
Volume 99 · Number 1144 · 1998 · 254–259
automated systems; this, however, is mislead-
ing. There are thirty-four other datasets which
have to be collected manually in order to form
the other indicators in the ISO draft standard.
Those datasets which cannot be generated by
the systems are some of the most time-con-
suming datasets to collect manually. For
example, none of the LASs examined can
generate all the datasets to form the Speed of
processing documents indicator and the
alternative to the automated system is to use a
manual sampling method which loses the
benefit of retrospective data gathering and is
also labour intensive.
In conclusion there is a clear need for
closer liaison between librarians and LAS
designers. Whether or not a library follows the
ISO draft standard librarians still need to
obtain useful management data from the
LASs. The ISO standard is one of the most
recent attempts to generate interest and
implementation of performance measurement
within libraries but the datasets forming the
indicators would be useful to librarians even if
the standard was not followed. Unless the
data collection becomes less time consuming,
the widespread adoption of the ISO standard
is likely to be limited.
References and further reading
Goodall, D.L. (1988), “Performance measurement: a
historical perspective”, Journal of Librarianship,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 128-144.
Harnesk, J. (1997), “The ISO Standard on Library Perfor-
mance Indicators (ISO 11620)”, in Proceedings of
the 2nd Northumbria International Conference on
Performance Measurement in Libraries and Informa-
tion Services, 7-11 September, Information North,
1998, pp. 61-5.
International Standards Organisation (1995), ISO 11620:
Information and Documentation – Library Perfor-
mance Indicators, Working Draft 10, ISO Secretariat,
London, [Reference no. ISO TC46/SC8/WG4]
McClure, C.R. and Lopata, C.L. (1996), Assessing the
Academic Networked Environment: Strategies and
Options, Coalition for Networked Information,
Washington, DC.