The art and science of classification: Phyllis Allen Richmond, 1921-1997

Library Trends, Spring, 2004 by Kathryn La Barre

Her appointment as information systems specialist was a natural outcome of all that she had been doing in the ten years since her first appointment at the University of Rochester libraries. We begin to see her outline rationale for the importance of automation as early as 1956, as she highlights the monetary and temporal costs to faculty and library staff that resulted from the use of separate catalogs for each science library. We find her speculating on ways in which operations could be streamlined and automated so that faculty and staff could readily and quickly locate needed materials (Richmond, 1956, p. 315). This early work served as an introduction to her later efforts for producing an innovative series of computer-generated book and serial catalogs between the years 1963 and 1968. (5) Richmond had ready access to IBM tabulating equipment as early as 1962 through the University of Rochester computing center. Her efforts attracted the attention of those seeking to provide automation solutions for American libraries. Eastman Kodak, for example, contacted her early in 1959 to encourage her to seek a grant to fund the development (with their assistance) of a micro-card system. She wrote to Shera telling him that she declined the offer. (6) Too often she found the tests of such systems inadequate because little care was taken "to eliminate the flaws that normally accrue ... from the operation of variable factors." In her opinion, system tests yielded questionable results far too often due to a persistent failure to state conditions, variables, and criteria for success and because of a propensity to test essentially incompatible systems (Richmond, 1966b, p. 23).

Richmond published widely in the library literature about her experiences with computers (Richmond, 1963a, 1963b, 1963d, 1966a), available automation products (Richmond, 1967), possible solutions (Richmond, 1970a, 1970b), and research possibilities (1976b), and she encouraged library staff to be proactive in finding and implementing solutions for the future (Richmond, 1981a, 1981c). Often these articles were reprinted in textbooks and presented at conferences she helped to organize so that information workers from all walks of life could follow her clearheaded advice at each stage of the path to automation.

Richmond's extensive experience and hard-won expertise--gained by her leadership in early automation efforts--resulted in requests for her to write survey articles about the state of automation. In an article from 1981, for example, she discussed three main areas of success in automation: OCLC networking made possible by the use of MARC, increased use of online bibliographic databases, and the development of the computer-supported catalog. Yet, she indicated that all was not yet peaceful, "While these activities do not necessarily mean that library automation has reached the stage of universal acceptance with enthusiasm, it is now more a case of 'when' rather than 'whether'. From the literature one might assume that all the major problems of computers in libraries have been resolved. This is not exactly the case" (Richmond, 1981c, p. 28). Richmond does not lay the blame for this unrest solely on the librarians: "Automation in the library has been rather left out of the grand design for computerization. ... The library is still waiting. In fact, in most academic institutions, with a few notable exceptions, automation has come in via a network or consortium and independently of the local computer center" (1981 c, p. 29). She refers to the continuing problems "connected with the forced 'marriage' of libraries and [local] computer centers" (p. 29) as unresolved mainly due to the difficulties of creating working relationships between the library and computer center. Her final observation is telling: "It is depressing, after fifteen years, still to find so little cooperation" (p. 29). Richmond hoped that this grim situation would be resolved by the falling prices of computer technology by the end of the 1980s, which would enable libraries to afford their own computing equipment (Richmond, 1981c, p. 29).