Skip to Search

 
diagonal spacer
 
Copy Cataloging Annual Report - 2001/2002

Staff changes

v     At the end of the last fiscal year, Terri Smith, a long-time member of our team, left the Unit, joining Database Maintenance as an archivist. Sharon Holder filled the position of LTA responsible for Yankee firm orders and Rush requests in August. Sharon transferred to us from the Serials Cataloging Unit.

v     Phek Su began her sabbatical leave in August, returning in mid-May. Betsy Simpson functioned as acting Section Head during Phek's absence. On January 30, 2001, Daniel Cromwell left as Unit Head, taking a position with FCLA. Betsy Simpson served as acting Unit Head from February to April. Phek acted as Unit Head from mid-May through June.

v     In June, Hank Young joined our Unit. Hank was hired as temporary OPS to help with the shared cataloging done in our Unit. His extensive cataloging experience has so far proven invaluable.

v     From February through April, the number of student assistants increased from nine to fourteen. Students' cataloging and searching responsibilities were expanded during this time.

v     Four students performed 125 hours of community service working in the Processing Area. These students provided a great help in coping with the very large amount of microform material that had to be labeled and stamped in the Processing Area. The use of these community service workers increased the turn around time for the microform material and saved approximately $665 of OPS money.

 

New/Updated Procedures and Workflow

 

v     Revision and Updating of RUSH Procedure:  Betsy Simpson with Sharon, Fern and Patsy's help updated and revised the online rush procedure. The role of the Serials Cataloging Unit in the rush procedure was clarified.

v     Centralization of Tattle-taping Operation in the Copy Cataloging Unit: In January, discussions began on centralizing tattle-taping in the Processing Area of Resource Services. At this time, tattle-taping was done in the units receiving the material. While this workflow reduced congestion in the Processing Area, the dispersal of responsibility for tattle-taping made accountability difficult when problems arose. The realization that 3M was manufacturing a tattle-taping machine that promised to increase productivity was the catalyst for further discussion about centralizing tattle-taping. After the decision to purchase a 3M tattle-taping machine, Martha charged a work group with the task of working out an efficient workflow to allow for centralization of the tattle-taping. Doug chaired the Tattle-taping Work Group. Martha accepted the group'srecommendations. In February, planning began for the changes needed to implement the new workflow. Over the next few months, changes were made to the Processing Area, the Department's reference area, the shelving for the Yankee approval books and the shelving within our Unit.

v     Change in BAM Procedure:  Because of concern over the amount of time being spent on the review of BAM reports for LC and PCC material, Betsy, Patsy and Susan formed the BAM Report Review Work Group. In May, the group decided the Unit should discontinue its review and correction of errors reported on BAM reports for LC and PCC records without series (those categorized as Quick/Quick). LC and PCC records with series are still reviewed (Quick) as are shared records cataloged in the Unit (those categorized as G-Cat). All new material cataloged in the Unit is BAMed by all staff (including students cataloging Quick/Quick material) in order to automatically bring in any authority records not in LUIS.

Changes were also made to the Batch BAM procedure for Yankee material. Instead of the time consuming task of checking each record for accuracy and placing a "c" in the 035 field of the bibliographic record, all Yankee material is BAMed without review of the bibliographic records. The group came to its decision based on a careful analysis of the types of errors appearing on BAM reports; an assessment of the impact these errors would have on patron access and internal workflow; and the cost as measured in staff time devoted to correction of the reported errors.

v     Retrospective Analytics Workflow Guideline:  From time to time Collection Managers request that a Serial be analyzed but there had never been a workflow in place to accommodate these requests.  A combined effort between Copy Cataloging, Contributed Cataloging, and Serials Cataloging was initiated to come up with a workflow for these requests.  During the past fiscal year, the new workflow has been tried and is succeeding. Collection managers as of June 30, 2001 had submitted eight titles for review. Analysis of four of these titles was near completion.

v     New Video and CD-ROM Labeling Procedures:  In April a procedure was developed to replace handwritten call number labels on videos, DVDs and CD-ROMs with labels printed on the Dymo LabelWriter. A second Dymo was purchased to accommodate the additional workflow in the Processing Area. The second Dymo has increased efficiency and flexibility in the Processing Area.

v     New Procedure for the Handling of Book Jackets Doug created a written procedure for the handling of book jackets by catalogers.

v     Student Handbook for Searching OCLC:  Doug completed a student handbook for student searchers. The handbook covers the basic procedures for searching a record, identifying the correct record, and bringing the correct record into LUIS. The handbook will soon be added to the web page.

v     CIP Enhancement of Yankee Approvals:  Following a trial period for receiving enhanced CIPs from Yankee Book Peddler, the project was judged a success. According to the data Gloria collected on the time required to catalog Yankee approval books loaded with and without enhanced CIP records, the enhanced CIP records required about half the time to process. While the cost per book increased, the use of enhanced CIP records provides several benefits. Patrons helped directly because Yankee approval books are typically high-demand books. Getting them to the shelves as quickly as possible has been a priority for some time. Decreasing the time required to process Yankee approvals may also reduce the number of RUSH requests since these books, along with Yankee shelf-ready books, are requested more frequently than other types of material. Gloria has more to time to help the Unit with other types of cataloging.

v     Processing Accountability Procedures:  In late May of the last fiscal year, a procedure was developed by Doug to add a measure of accountability to the students working in the Processing area.  Each student was required to fill out a log sheet attached to each book truck destined for Circulation.  Each book truck was numbered. Circulation staff was able to relay the pertinent information to Doug who was able to tell which student had done the work.  At the time of the last annual report, the procedure was too new for a definitive assessment.  With over twelve months of experience using the procedure, it has been an unequivocal success. Error rates (excluding targeting problems) in Processing have dropped by over half on average.

OPS Allocation

OPS funding was $22,583, somewhat above average this year. Another $3,000 was allocated in the spring to cover the extra student assistants hired at the beginning of February.

 

Service to the Library:

Susan Constantinaeu -- BAM Report Review Work Group

Daniel Cromwell - Monograph Copy Cataloging Committee, Chair
Daniel Cromwell - Links Monitoring and Maintenance Committee

Daniel Cromwell - EDIS Project
Patsy Mongo - Resource Services Security and Personal Safety Committee
Patsy Mongo - Resource Services Training Committee

Patsy Mongo -- Cataloging on Demand Work Group

Patsy Mongo - BAM Report Review Work Group
Doug Smith - Chair, Tattle-tape Work Group

Doug Smith - Cataloging on Demand Work Group

Doug Smith - OCLC Connexion Work group

Unit Statistics

Titles Cataloged:  From the previous fiscal year to this fiscal year, the number of titles cataloged by the Unit increased by 15%. The total number of volumes cataloged increased by about the same amount, 14%. The number of adds cataloged actually declined slightly by 1%. Below is a comparison of titles cataloged over the past three years. The final column gives the increase over the previous fiscal year (2000/2001) in number and percentage terms.

Over the three-year period, the total number of volumes cataloged increased by 47%. The number of adds cataloged in the Unit increased 46% over the same three-year period. It is to the credit of our staff that we have absorbed an increase of almost 50% in our workflow over the past three years while maintaining a reasonable turn around time for our material.

 

 

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

Change over last yr.

Titles:

22,124

28,428

32,630

+4,202     +15%

Adds:

1,778

2,625

  2,597

-28           -01%

Vols:

24,801

32,003

36,464

+4,461     +14%

 

Incoming Items Statistics:  Incoming material increased over all three categories: monographs, non-book material and adds. Monographs increased by 4% and non-book material by 21% due largely to an increase of microform titles. The largest increase was in the number of adds which increased by 26% over the last fiscal year (2000/2001). The discrepancy between adds cataloged and adds received exists for two reasons. A significant influx of adds, which were not cataloged in this fiscal year, were received in June. A second reason may be miscounting due to material being sent to the Unit as adds when they are actually new titles:

 

 

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

Change over last yr.

Monographs

34,532

43,208

44,603

+1,395          +4%

Non-book*

2,139

12,538

15,129

+2,601        +21%

Adds

1,050

2,468

3,101

+633           +26%

*Includes: CD-ROMs, DVD-recordings, Video-recordings, Microforms, etc.

 

Rush Processing Statistics:  The number of RUSH requests grew by 9% compared to 2000/2001. The average increase in rushes over the three fiscal years listed below is a high 38%. The percentage of Rushes found relative to the total number requested stayed about the same with a 1% increase. The discrepancy between rushes requested and rushes found is for two reasons: If items are requested while still on order, there may be a long delay between the item being counted as requested and its being counted as found. In some cases, this may split the count between two fiscal years. The second reason is a large number of requests made toward the end of the last fiscal year, resulting in the item being counted as found in the next fiscal year.

 

 

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

Change over last yr.

Requests

289

483

526

+43           +9%

Found

271

455

551

+96          +21%

% Found

93.8%

94.2%

95.2%

+1%

 

Physical Processing: The last two fiscal years have seen large increases in the number of labels printed in Processing. In 2001/2002, the number of labels printed increased by a staggering 87% relative to 2000/2001. This is an exceptional increase and can be explained partially by the fact that two microfiche titles accounted for approximately 30,000 of the labels printed. Since such a large increase in workflow could not be accommodated by our usual number of student assistants, arrangements were made to utilize community service workers whenever possible to supplement the student assistants working in the Processing Area. For these large runs, all number stamps were specially made for this material. The cost of Vernon labels would have been $400. The cost of the stamps was approximately $25. The use of stamps rather than labels provided a savings of $375. The remaining 26,000 labels are the result of an overall increase in materials received, specifically an increase in the number of large collections of microform materials received during the year (not including the two aforementioned titles).

 

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

Change over last yr.

No. of Labels Printed

42,382

65,498

122,483*

+56,985     +87%

* Includes microfiche processed with specially made call number stamps.

 

University of Florida Home Page