Evaluation of e-DDC Usage Among University Libraries in Bali

As an educational institution that uses a variety of information sources to support the teaching and learning process, higher education is one area where the rapid proliferation of information has an impact. The quantity and variety of collections in a library are impacted by the need for and expansion of information. The library must pay special attention to carrying out work including classification activities as an information manager. The library is starting with this effort to organize various forms of the information therein. Library classification is part of the field of processing in the library. This activity includes grouping information/knowledge into the same or similar subject. In simple terms, classification in the library can be interpreted as a classification/grouping of knowledge contained in a document of all kinds. The ultimate goal of this activity is that library users can easily, quickly, and precisely find sources of information within the library. In general, classification refers to grouping or classifying a number of goods, objects, or objects into the same characteristics and elements. Library classification is organized into two events, namely 1) organizing the information itself by recognizing similarities between fields of knowledge, and 2) library classification by arranging books on shelves, and storing all books according to their subject (Batley, 2014). Due to the vast amount of information available today, classifying activities are a fundamental library task that must be completed. Special techniques and management are needed to organize the library's billions of collections so that the necessary collections can easily be discovered. Therefore, engaging in classifying tasks is crucial. According to Lestari (2016), classification organizes relevant knowledge. In addition, another opinion by Alamsyah (2017) states that library classification is a systematic arrangement for library users through the subject of books and other materials on shelves or catalogs and index entries. Due to a large number of collections, a system that controls collection management was required to make it easier to organize work for processing operations in the library. As a rack management system, the DDC notation scheme facilitates both physical and mental access (as a classification system) (Kapoor, n.d.) There are several types of classification systems or guidelines in libraries, such as DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification), UDC (Universal Decimal Classification), LCC (Library of Congress Classification), BBC (Bliss Bibliographic Classification), and CC (Colon Classification). The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is the most widely used system among all the available classification systems in Indonesian libraries. Melvil Dewey first developed the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system in 1873. He was an American citizen and librarian at Amherst College (Mutia & Suherman, 2018). DDC has been used by more than 135 countries worldwide, including Africa, America, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, etc. (Online Computer Library Center, n.d.) Information management in college libraries requires a good classification system, one of which is the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This classification system can help the librarian in optimizing the performance of the processing section in library so that library users can easily, quickly, and precisely find the needed information within the library. The sophistication of Information technology today also influences activities in the library Processing Division, including the development of the Dewey Decimal Classification system in electronic format (E-DDC). This E-DDC system can assist library managers in determining the classification number of books in the library more quickly and easily. According to Sulistyo Basuki (in Supriadi, 2015), library classification purposes include, 1) assisting users in identifying and placing a collection through a call number, and 2) grouping all the same documents into one. The notation contained in the DDC consists of IndoArabic numbers used with decimals. The numbers contained in the DDC generally start with a base number and progress from general to specific. At each level the division is indicated by adding a new digit (Krishna, 2021). The sources that will be used to determine the subject vary, such as the title, table of contents, the text itself, or maybe external sources that can be used to determine about the book (Lazarinis, 2014). The base class in classification by discipline or field of study. As a result, the DDC is hierarchical. (Golub et al., 2020). Since the initial revision was completed in 1885, regular development of DDC has continued to this day. The 23rd edition was initially supposed to be published in 2010. However, it was postponed by around a year till it was issued in May 2011. As of now, it has a strong foundation in Europe thanks to the creation of the "European DDC User Group (EDUG) in 2007." The library presently serves as a hub for research on the theory and application of knowledge organization, including information retrieval (Satija, 2013). For 131 years, the DDC system has grown and changed to meet the community's demands. Each revision has been enhanced, changed, and modernized by incorporating the findings from the most recent research in library classification (Suresha, 2016) (Rotmianto, 2016). In addition, there are several changes, expansions, and additions to numbers in the form of tables and charts contained in DDC23, including providing changes to notation regarding Indonesia (Suharyanto, 2012). The DDC classification system has been developed in electronic form (E-DDC), making it easier for librarians/library managers to carry out classification activities more quickly and efficiently. Electronic DDC is an online version of DDC with a high added value, and can be searched by words or phrases, numbers, terms, indexes, and Boolean operations. Text can be browsed, and hierarchies can be displayed. In Indonesia, the Electronic Dewey Decimal Classification was developed by Rotmianto Mohamad in 2009 and aimed to assist and facilitate librarians and any activists in the library. In this case, the classifier determines the library's classification number. The presence of E-DDC is expected to be able to understand the overall DDC scheme. Since 2017, electronic Dewey decimal classification has changed its name to electronic classification (e-Class) (Rotmianto, 2019). Several reasons underlie the creation of E-DDC, among others: 1) Library management systems have developed many in libraries, such as SLIMS (Senayan Library Management Systems), INLISlite (Integrated Library Systems Lite), LASER (Library Automation Service), LARIS (Library Automation Service). Airlangga Retrieval Information System, Openbiblio, KOHA, Athenaeum Light etc. However, no software application can help determine the classification number (particularly for free/open source software), 2) so many human resources lack a foundation in library science, and 3) The complete edition of the DDC manual (Manual DDC) is quite expensive, making it unavailable to libraries across Indonesia, particularly those in rural areas (Rotmianto, 2016).

This descriptive study employs a quantitative approach. All the public university library staff in the province of Bali made up the study's population. Seven universities utilized e-DDC as a way to support library classification tasks. Because the number of samples utilized equals the size of the population, complete sampling was used. The sample size is equal to the population, which consisted of librarians: 53 people from 6 public universities throughout Bali. They are from Universitas Udayana, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Politeknik Pariwisata Bali, Politeknik Negeri Bali, Politeknik Kesehatan Denpasar, and Institut Hindu Dharma Negeri Denpasar. The data were obtained through questionnaires, literature study, and observation. This study's design was based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Based on user perceptions, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) defines how users accept information systems (Tella & Olasina, 2014). Davis and Kim's examination of TAM components inspired the study's concept. The following are the study's hypotheses: 1) Job relevance has a significant effect on perceived usefulness of using e-DDC, 2) User training has a considerable impact on perceived benefit of using e-DDC 3) User training has a significant effect on perceived ease of use of e-DDC use, 4) Accessibility has a significant effect on perceived ease of use using e-DDC, 5) Terminology clarity has a significant effect on perceived ease of use using e-DDC, 6) Perceived ease of use has a significant influence on perceived usefulness of the use of e-DDC, 7) Perceived usefulness has a significant influence on intention to use using e-DDC, 8) Perceived ease of use has a significant influence on intention to use of e-DDC, 9) Intention to use has a significant effect on actual to use e-DDC.

The use of e-DDC in this study is divided into a variety of categories, including the types of classifying systems that have been used, the most popular form, the current version of e-DDC, the reasons for using e-DDC, the intensity of e-DDC use, and the length of time that e-DDC has been used. As indicated in table 1, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) are the three classification systems that have been used among the libraries.Table 1. Types of classification systems Types of Classification Systems Number of Responses (%) Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) 52 98 Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) Library of Congress Classification (LCC) Others 0 0 1 0 0 2 According to the data, 52 respondents (98%) utilize the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), making it the most popular classification system. It is similar to research conducted by Ullah et al. (2017), which stated that DDC is the most used classification system, followed by UDC and ACM by doing comparisons and evaluations available in bibliographic classifications in Indonesia. Furthermore, the most typical library classification system form is available in two different formats: printed and electronic. Table 2 demonstrates that libraries use printed materials the most. Table 2. The most frequently used form of the system The Most Used Number of Responses (%) Printed 32 60 Electronic DDC 21 40 Some factors influence the usage of printed forms. For instance, the contents are more comprehensive than those in electronic format, and the hardcopy forms arrived before those of electronic ones. As the classification system evolved, e-DDC underwent various revisions broken down into different versions. Table 3 shows that as many as 33 respondents (62%) use e-DDC version 23. In contrast, no one uses e-Class at all because the recent version of e-class (electronic classification) is not often well-known by libraries or librarians. In addition, the latest version has not been widely published with an open-source system to the public. Therefore, most librarians or library staff are more familiar with e-DDC version 23 as the last version of the e DDC. Table 3. E-DDC version used E-DDC version used Number of Responses (%) E-DDC version 1 4 8 E-DDC version 22 16 30 E-DDC version 23 33 62 E-Class 0 0 There are several reasons for using e-DDC for classification activities, including budget constraints to purchase printed DDC, speeding up identifying the required classification number, and making it easier to identify the necessary collection classification number, as shown in table 4 below: Table 4. Reasons for Using E-DDC Reasons for Using E-DDC Number of Responses (%) Budget constraint to buying printed DDC Identify the necessary classification number quickly Making it easier to identify the required classification number 2 23 28 4 43 53 This is in line with Yulia Putri's research (2021), who stated that the use of the e-DDC application is beneficial, more straightforward, and in terms of time is more efficient. In terms of intensity and duration of used, the following tables illustrate that most of the 21 respondents (40%) stated that the intensity of using e-DDC was less than 2 times a week. This shows that the intensity of the use of e-DDC is low. It is because some librarians or library staff prefer to refer to printed DDC, such as respondents from Udayana University. The reason is that the information contained in the printed DDC is more complete than the electronic DDC and the use of the printed DDC has been a guideline from the beginning at Udayana University Table 5. The intensity of used e-DDC Intensity of used e-DDC Number of Responses (%) < 2 times 2-3 times > 4 times 21 19 13 40 36 24 Table 6. The length of time used e-DDC Duration of used e-DDC Number of Responses (%) <10 minutes 10-20 minutes >20 minutes 23 20 10 43 38 19 Meanwhile, the table 6 shows that most respondents use e-DDC for less than 10 minutes per book. One could assert that e-DDC can speed up classification activities within the library, due to the fact that e-DDC simply enters the necessary keywords to find the needed class number. Only a few respondents used e-DDC for more than 20 minutes, with a total of 10 respondents (19%). By examining the degree of the influence on the components of TAM, the usage of electronic Dewey Decimal Classification (e-DDC) in the university libraries in Bali can be explained as follows. Figure 1. Structural model results between variables Based on the hypothesis testing in Figure 1 shows that an adequate level of significance is indicated by the t statistic value > 1.96 (significance level 5%). Based on the level of significance (α) = 5% = 1.98, a two-sided test with degrees of freedom, namely df = (n-k) = (53-8) = 45. From this, it can assert that five hypotheses show a significant influence between variables and three hypotheses show no significant impact. In addition, external variables that affect the use of e-DDC in the library of State Universities in Bali include user guidance, accessibility, clarity of terms, and ease of use. The effectiveness of using e-DDC compared to the printed DDC showed that the duration of the utilization of e-DDC is more optimal than the printed one. However, the intensity of librarians or library staff in libraries that used the printed DDC more than electronic DDC.

Documentary Institutions in Indonesia The convergence movement emerges due to the need for knowledge resources stored in real and virtual forms, in two or three-dimensional formats, living or dead, and even in intangible documents. Physically, document collection, recording, organizing, storage, and maintenance may occur separately. However, considering that these documents are media carriers of messages, information, and knowledge, they might intertwine in the same series effectively. Documentation must therefore be handled according to the same standard, especially in digital form. Unfortunately, in Indonesia, convergence has not become an option in providing knowledge services to the public on a massive scale. Although practitioners and documentary managers frequently discussed the issue, they have not discussed how inter-institutions converge. It is understandable because collaboration activities are rarely occupied among documentary institutions, except in the Regional Library and Archives Service or the Regional Museum and Archives Service. The values that underlie collaboration are the same goals and perceptions, the willingness to process and provide mutual benefits, honesty, compassion, and community-based (Yudhawasthi, 2014). The National Library of Indonesia has initiated the Indonesia OneSearch, a single search gateway for all public collections from libraries, museums, and archives throughout Indonesia (IOS, 2020). Since its development in 2015, IOS has had 9,704,312 unique entries and 13,895,896 entries with duplicates. Automated harvesting method, such as IOS accumulates collection from the repositories of partner organizations from various sectors: Library, Archives, and Botanical Gardens. Meanwhile, Galleries, Museums, and Sites have not emerged as a sector. It shows that IOS as a convergence tool is not yet widespread and not optimal among documentary institutions. The presence of IOS is exciting amid the GLAMS convergence discourse. Indonesian museums operate independently online through their websites and social media accounts, and Instagram is the most used. As many as 247 museums have used social media, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (Komunitas Jelajah, 2020). Through the Indonesian Museum Association (AMI) website and the National Museum Registration System (SRNM) of the Ministry of Education and Culture, the public can obtain brief information regarding the address, history, number of collections, and contacts of museums in Indonesia. Unfortunately, the existing data has not been updated and is not uniform. For example, on the AMI website, activities stopped in 2016 by recording 428 museum members of the 18 Indonesian Regional Museum Associations (AMIDA). Meanwhile, on the SRNM website, there are 520 museums in Indonesia, with 134 registered and standardized museums. Museums in Indonesia are very likely to join world organizations such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM). However, not many museums have collaborated or converged yet. In recent years, several consolidation initiatives have been launched to create convergence, particularly by some museum practitioners and university museum managers. In 2019, the Indonesian Higher Education Museum Network (Jejaring Museum Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia JMPTI) was established, explicitly aiming to strengthen collaboration between university museums in Indonesia. JMPTI affiliates with University Museums and Collections, and the International Council of Museums (UMAC-ICOM). JMPTI's vision and mission are similar to the Indonesian Higher Education Library Forum (FPPTI). The two organizations even held online discussions in 2020 to initiate convergence between museums and libraries in the university environment. The event also involved universities that have galleries and campus archives (Yudhawasthi, 2020). Archival Institutions in Indonesia There are currently at least two professional archives and records organizations in Indonesia; the Indonesian Archives Association (AAI) and the Indonesian Record Management Professional Association (P3RI), which membership is open to individuals and organizations. Unfortunately, the two organizations have not carried out many joint activities. P3RI, established in 2017, has routine training and discussion activities but was stopped during the pandemic. AAI was established in 1998; some of its members are government employees (ASN) and mostly synergize through the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia (ANRI). ANRI is a member of the Southeast Asia Pacific Audiovisual Archive Association (SEAPAVAA). Meanwhile, a Cultural Conservation Site is a location on land and/or in water containing objects and buildings of cultural heritage and structures due to human activities or evidence of past events. In Indonesia, cultural heritage sites are recorded in the National Registration System for Cultural Conservation (SRNCG), including museum data. The procedure and requirements to be designated cultural heritage are quite complicated, as seen at SRNCG. Since the issuance of Law Number 11 of 2010 concerning Cultural Conservation, the number of cultural heritages is 141 (2013-2018) from 99,462 applications submitted until mid-2021. An extraordinary number of Indonesian collective memory documents are stored separately and not connected in a single communication network. GLAMS is currently adding one more institution, monument (M), when referring to other countries. Hence, convergence among documentary institutions in Indonesia is potential. However, the road to get there is not well laid out. From several online discussions, such as the one held by the LIPI Data and Scientific Documentation Center (PDDI) with the Indonesian Documentation Study Work (KSKI) on June 30, 2021, understanding and thinking about convergence were still in physical and structural integration. Convergence must be interpreted broadly in the current digital era, not just physical union but also the unification of function, substance, and communication. All the problems in the convergence issue is the aspect of communication, as described in the following discussion.

Classification activities among university libraries in Bali used the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) guidelines, and the more widely used format is the printed format. It indicates that e DDC has not been maximally used among libraries. Several factors influence the use of e-DDC, including user training, accessibility, clarity of terms, and ease of use. In addition, comparing the effectiveness between the use of e-DDC and printed DDC shows that the duration of the use of e-DDC compared to manual DDC is more optimal. However, the intensity of librarians or library staff at State Universities in Bali uses manual DDC more than electronic DDC. It is suggested that the development of classification activities across all libraries, not just in academic libraries, can be studied for the upcoming study. Additionally, different ideas can be used to produce research on the application of classifying systems in libraries.