Cataloging Upon Receipt Committee Final
Report
July 19, 2002
Committee Members:
Marie Kennedy - Chair
Charles McElroy
Patsy Mongo
Elaine Needelman
Doug Smith
Pilot project introduction:
The variety of material that passes between Monographs Acquisitions and
Copy Cataloging requires broad knowledge to put through to the active shelves
in the libraries. This project attempts to facilitate a more streamlined
process for receiving, paying and cataloging of Yankee Book Peddler (YBP)
approval materials. YBP approvals are about twenty percent of the items
that pass between Monographs Acquisitions and Copy Cataloging. Other material
handled by both units includes Latin American and African approvals and
firm orders, which may be in the following formats: videos, monographs in
print and electronic format, audio CD-ROM's and cassettes, microfiche, microfilm,
DVD's and music scores. Of all of this material, YBP approvals were chosen
for this pilot project because the group felt that it was a realistic evaluation
of time efforts based on complicating factors.
Staff required for this pilot project:
One member from Monographs Acquisitions, one from Copy Cataloging
Training requirements:
Efforts can be made for the two staff members to train each other in the
areas of receiving, paying invoices and copy cataloging.
There is current documentation that supports the workflows in both units that can be used to aid in the cross training. As well, current documentation can be updated during this process.
Staff members will need access to LUIS sessions that allow cataloging, receipt and payment functions. Any paperwork required by the State to allow for receipt processing will need to be addressed.
Project description:
This project will begin with cross training of two staff members: one from
Acquisitions, one from Copy Cataloging. The staff member from Acquisitions
will train the Copy Cataloging staff member to receive and pay invoices
for the YBP approval plan. The Copy Cataloging staff member will train the
Acquisitions staff member to copy catalog YBP approval monographs.
The staff members will choose twenty-five to thirty books per shipment to receive, pay and catalog according to the workflows available. Any work-saving procedures that the staff develops will be noted, to be considered as part of the assessment report.
This task group believes that the best assessment of the success of this project will be made over time. Therefore we suggest that this project be conducted over at least three separate YBP shipments.
Any invoicing or cataloging problems, or any piece from the shipment that does not fit the standards of the project, will be set aside to be addressed by permanent staff in either area. Of the records that YBP puts for download, all are DLC copy. If there is no DLC copy found, YBP will not load the record; about twenty percent of all items received at UF do not have any copy loaded. These items without available copy will need to be searched by permanent staff and should not be included in this project. Of the DLC records that are loaded, some are CIP. These will be included in the project. Statistics will be gathered to determine a typical number of Acquisitions problems versus a typical number of cataloging problems. This information can be included in the assessment report.
Evaluation of project
There are existing statistics to gauge how much time each portion of the process of cataloging and receipt processing requires. Those statistics can be a guide for the staff members chosen for this project. The staff members can check each other's work and address any corrections that need to be made. An assessment report can be written to summarize the effect of this process.
The committee also discussed the following topics related to cataloging upon receipt.
EDI payments
Invoice payment by EDI would be an economical time saver for our library. EDI will be a part the ALEPH system and will be available when the system is actually in place after the beginning of fiscal year 2003-2004. Details regarding EDI are sketchy but it is known that this system will enable us to make invoice payments electronically and would take the invoice payment responsibility from the staff involved in cataloging on receipt activities. Current payment procedures average three to fifteen minutes of staff/student time depending on invoice length and problems encountered; invoices contain from one to twenty-five titles. Order records must be opened and individual pay statements attached to each one until the invoice is completed. Open order records are closed as pay statements are attached. The invoice record is reviewed for errors then closed if totals match. There are usually fifteen to twenty invoices per approval shipment, which translates into an average timesaving of between four to seven hours.
Cataloging acceptance policy
Our group also briefly considered some farther-reaching issues besides the immediate issue of cataloging on receipt. In order to do this, our group looked at the final report from the ALA's Task Force on Copy Cataloging Acceptance Policies. The report summarizes a questionnaire about copy cataloging practices answered by twenty-three large research libraries. Below are three of the more relevant findings and how they relate to our charge.
- Some form of copy cataloging is done as
part of the receiving process in acquisitions in 61% of the responding
libraries. The amount of material handled ranged from 2 to 68 percent
of all material cataloged. It appears that many libraries have softened
to one degree or another the division between acquisitions and copy cataloging.
Some types of cataloging on receipt might best be handled in a Copy Cataloging
unit, while other types would best be handled in an Acquisitions unit.
Specific to our charge, Approval material may be cataloged and paid most effectively in the Copy Cataloging unit. Firm order material might be best handled in Acquisitions because the cataloging aspect of Firm material is simpler but the acquisitions aspect of such material is more complicated in that the material must be ordered ahead of time. In other words, there are various permutations to consider if there is to be an overlap of activities between the two units.
- Acceptance of copy without review remains
an elusive dream for most libraries. All respondents, including those
that receive Yankee material, agreed that at least minimal review of copy
was necessary. The degree of review varied considerably. Direct transfer
from box to shelf still seems problematic for libraries.
At a minimum, the staff in our Copy Cataloging Unit checks the following fields:
- 100: Spelling of author's name is correct.
- 250: Edition statement matches that on item.
- 245: Title on copy matches title page.
- 260: Year of publication on copy matches year on item.
- 300: Basic physical description of item is correct, i.e. pagination.
- 440: Series information on copy matches
that on item.
- A surprisingly broad range of staff handles copy-cataloging material in many libraries. In some libraries, student employees catalog much of the LC copy material; in others, senior staff handles all levels of copy. The Copy Cataloging Unit in our department regularly utilizes one or two student employees for cataloging of LC copy without series or X11 tags. It might improve turnover time if student employees regularly handled LC copy with series and X11 tags. BAMing the records guarantees that most authority records will be brought in automatically.
Benefits of receiving shelf-ready material
- Reduces processing and cataloging turn around time.
- Material provided to patrons quickly, thus reducing time to fulfill rush and ILL requests.
- Allows experienced catalogers to apply their skills to more difficult cataloging issues.
Advantages and disadvantages of combining
cataloging and acquisitions functions
(with input from http://staffweb.library.northwestern.edu/marc/index.html.)
A. Approval books
Advantages:
- Streamline processing
- Eliminate excessive handling of new materials
- Expand staff knowledge and problem solving abilities
- Increase flexibility to shift assignments and change priorities
- Share student resources
- Maximize cross-training
- Since both units work closely with each other, merging the two could facilitate the resolution of problems and speed up those workflows that involve transfers from one unit to the other or actions that both currently have to carry out.
- One individual could, in principle, follow nearly the entire workflow cycle for an item, decreasing the likelihood of errors and miscommunication
Disadvantages:
- There may be efficiencies in specialization. Expertise may be greater if you are very familiar with one part of the workflow.
- Unit size could be unwieldy. Not likely any efficiencies gained would reduce current number of employees since our work is not generally redundant. Large number of employees could cause division into subunits, defeating purpose of merger.
- Senior staff may be reluctant to participate in cross training.
- Current office arrangement would not be able to accommodate an increase in staff.
B. Firm Orders
A large portion of Monograph Unit tasks involves the firm order process. The position description of each unit member includes liaison responsibilities, which mandate maintaining positive working relations with collection management and vendors. Firm orders must be placed in a timely manner throughout the fiscal year to expend the allocated book budget. The variety of firm orders and vendors required to fulfill orders make it a very time consuming process. Given the current structure of this unit it would be difficult to imagine combining the acquisition and cataloging units effectively.
Summary
After considering the factors involved in combining
cataloging and acquisitions functions related to cataloging upon receipt
- space limitations, training issues, and expectations of the new library
management system - the committee believes this to be a premature solution.
As we learn more about how the new system will affect the day-to-day operations
perhaps this issue can be revisited. Aside from system issues overriding
functionality of the units will have to be addressed if this project is
to be a success.
