[663] in ad-lib
workflow problems--I mean, opportunites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (rschmidt@MIT.EDU)
Tue May 23 12:51:24 1995
From: rschmidt@MIT.EDU
To: smitchel@MIT.EDU
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 12:50:47 EDT
Sarah--
After the library-wide meeting on Advance yesterday, and
your e-mail last week about standing orders, I have some
comments on workflow in 4 areas: barcoding computer
disks; reconfiguring quality control procedures for
monograph catalogers; tracking items in the bindery
backlog; standing order procedures.
BARCODING COMPUTER DISKS
A few months back I talked with David Murphy about what
Barker does with 3.5" computer disks that arrive in the backs
of books in plastic sleeves attached to the books, without an
envelope of their own. Since they keep the disks at the Circ
desk, David said that they keep a stock of disk-sized
envelopes for storing them. On this envelope they attach a
copyright warning, a call number label provided by the
cataloger, and the disk's barcode (which has been cut out
and paper-clipped somewhere inside the book by the
cataloger). I think they property stamp the envelope too.
I imagine the procedure is very similar in other libraries. It
seems like it would be a good idea for SAS to get some of
these envelopes so that they don't have to mess with
scissors and paper clips when barcoding books
accompanied by disks. Instead we could treat them in the
way we treat 5 3/4" disks. Having the envelope at this point
in the workflow would also give us a better place for the
initial location/property stamp, rather than stamping the disk
(this is better for the disk). It would also be a better place for
catalogers to put the call number, rather than affixing a label
somewhere to the paperwork or book for later attachment by
a processing librarian.
QC PROCEDURES FOR MONOGRAPH CATALOGERS
Barcoding on receipt means that monograph catalogers
won't be placing barcodes on printed order slips for a 4-week
retention in case of GOCIRC problems anymore. I assume
in Advance we will know in 24 hours if a record didn't enter
the main database. But when a barcode misread occurs
during cataloging, for instance, what means will we have for
determining the correct barcode number?
I have one suggestion for solving this, which at first glance
may seem to slow things down but may in fact do away with
a number of other steps in the cataloging process. It is as
follows:
1) After producing a record in OCLC the cataloger retains
the book till the following morning.
2) In Advance (the following morning), wand in the barcode
to call up the record.
3) Extend search choosing call number; examine online
"shelflist" for conflicts.lf all is in order, send book on to the
bindery.
This procedure will improve quality control and problem
resolution (the current procedures were already
improvements over old card receipt procedures), by doing
several things:
1) Determining that the cataloger actually produced the
record in OCLC; catalogers currently count shelflist cards
daily, matching them against statistics to make sure the
cataloger hasn't accidentally sent the book on without hitting
the "produce" button.
2) Eliminating the need to file shelflist cards, which is now
done only to prevent call number conflicts. When a conflict
occurs, the book is in hand and can be easily corrected.
Currently, when conflicts occur, catalogers have to retrieve
books from the bindery or divisional/branch library.
3) Eliminating the need to sort and distribute shelflist cards.
4) Identifying problems analogous to old GOCIRC problems
at a point in which the cataloger will still have complete
information to provide to the database maintenance staff if
necessary.
BINDERY BACKLOG
With overnight ftp-ing of OCLC records into Advance, we
need to account for the time between cataloging a record
and the item's stay in the bindery. Is there a need for
temporary location information, to be updated on receipt by
processing librarians in public service units?
STANDING ORDERS
Placing cataloging instructions for monograph standing
orders online. Just so we're clear on this, I think the only
instruction to catalogers on the xeroxed manual kardex is a
classed together call number, when there is one. This
information is also provided to us in the manual series
authority file, but in terms of workflow, it's more efficient
when it comes to us on the xeroxed kardex. There may be a
parallel as we move to an online environment: while a
classed together call number is appropriate information to
include on a series authority record, it may be more efficient
to include call number information on whatever the online
version of the kardex is. I'll leave this suggestion short and
vague, since I don't know what monograph standing order
check-in will look like in Advance.
--Ray Schmidt
