The reorganization of monographic cataloging processes at Penn State University Libraries

Transcription

1 Pergamon Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002) The reorganization of monographic cataloging processes at Penn State University Libraries Robert B. Freeborn*, Rebecca L. Mugridge Pennsylvania State University Libraries, 126 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802, USA Abstract In 1999 The Pennsylvania State University Libraries established a task force to examine monographic cataloging workflow and processes. The Monographs Task Force used both written and telephone surveys to establish benchmarks for comparison with similar institutions. The Task Force also requested input from staff in Cataloging, Acquisitions and Public Services and queried online discussion lists for feedback about similar reorganizations. The Task Force made recommendations concerning staffing, workflow, and staff training designed to increase efficiency and reduce handoffs. The implementation of initial recommendations have shown positive results Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Monographic workflow; Copy cataloging; Reorganization; Fastcat; Reengineering 1. Introduction In December 1999, a task force was established by Pennsylvania State University Libraries Assistant Dean for Technical and Access Services to examine the entire acquisitions and cataloging process for monographs and determine where improvements could be made. In keeping with the University Libraries commitment to the principles of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), principles which enable people to work together across organizational boundaries to improve shared processes, the membership of the task force included a cross-section of Cataloging and Acquisitions staff members directly involved in the monographs workflow. By including the staff in this important decision-making process, their * Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: address: rbf@psulias.psu.edu (R.B. Freeborn) /02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S (01)

2 36 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) ideas and concerns would be reflected in the final recommendations. To this mix was added two faculty librarians, one each from Cataloging and Public Services, and a facilitator from a university department outside of the library. This facilitator served two roles. First, she kept the task force focused on their ultimate goal, and second, she served as an intermediary between the task force and the Assistant Dean when questions arose. The charge to the task force was threefold: 1. Review the monographic ordering, receiving and cataloging processes to stress quick and efficient processing and an integrated workflow. 2. Determine the feasibility and desirability of merging more copy cataloging functions into the acquisitions process for monographs. (Previously, the Acquisitions teams had performed some copy cataloging processes.) 3. Recommend a staffing organization and the type of management structure that would best suit the suggested organization. The original completion date was February 15, 2000; roughly two months to accomplish their task. The remainder of this article will examine the methodology used by the task force, the findings they achieved, the recommendations based on those findings, and the status of their implementation. 2. Literature survey Stanford University Libraries studied processes in acquisitions and cataloging in 1995, in order to reduce handoffs and duplication of work, and to take advantage of technological advances that were available within the libraries and from vendors. Part of the impetus for the desired changes was the opportunity presented by the establishment of a flatter technical services organization. Stanford introduced changes such as regularizing workflows between departments, and representing these workflows using flowcharts [1]. While the reengineering was still taking place at the time of the writing, the authors concluded that constant change is an almost certain reality for the future and that it will be necessary to remain flexible in this environment [2]. The need to be adaptable is echoed by Bloss and Lanier, who discuss how reengineering technical services processes affects the position of the department head. The reengineering efforts at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) were also facilitated by a recent flattening of the organizational hierarchy. The goals of reengineering in UIC s case were not necessarily to address processing or staffing issues, but recognized that it is essential to be organized in a way that can react effectively to constant change. The authors found that organizations that utilize team responsibility for getting things done require a high tolerance for ambiguity and change [3] and that this tolerance is needed at all levels of staffing. The evolutionary nature of change itself is addressed by Slight-Gibney, who acknowledges that incremental change is often easier to implement. The University of Oregon

3 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) Library System assessed its technical services processes in order to address persistent cataloging backlogs. In particular, the use of FastCat has resulted in a decrease of some of the book backlogs and an increase in the monographic cataloging output. Slight-Gibney defines FastCat as the process of cataloging by exporting a record from a bibliographic utility into a local system without editing or review [4]. Usually the source of the cataloging copy is the Library of Congress. Strategies used to address change and reduce stress during the implementation of FastCat included effective communication, clearly stated goals, realistic timetables, participative involvement by both managers and staff, and training. The challenges of reengineering, such as documentation and training, are addressed briefly by Easton. The State University of New York at Buffalo moved copy cataloging of monographs to the acquisitions unit in the early 1990s. They found that there was significant training and documentation involved, and that one of the ways of coping was to simplify procedures and perform less editing of records [5]. Beall reports on another issue that affects what material can be handled by FastCat units as opposed to catalogers. Vendor records are more frequently being incorporated into bibliographic utilities. The low level of the quality of these records ensures that although they might be suitable for placing orders, they will need to be referred to catalogers upon receipt. The skill and knowledge needed to upgrade these records to full level require cataloging expertise that does not exist at the FastCat level [6]. 3. Background Pennsylvania State University began to embrace CQI principles in the early 1990s. At that time the University Libraries Acquisitions and Cataloging departments were multi-tiered hierarchical organizations in which the staff followed strict procedures and all decisionmaking was done at the supervisory levels. By 1995 both Acquisitions and Cataloging had been restructured according to CQI tenets into significantly flatter organizations consisting of departmental managers and task-based teams (see Appendix A). Cataloging evolved from 45 full-time faculty and staff within a five-level organizational framework in 1992 into 34 full-time employees arranged into six teams and led by a three-person (later reduced to two) Management Group in Five of the Cataloging teams focus on the original and copy cataloging for a particular format/area (Maps, Music/ AV, Monographs, Serials, Rare Materials/Special Collections), while the sixth is responsible for all physical processing of materials (CatMarking). The five format/area teams include one or more faculty members who act as informational resources rather than supervisors. In contrast, Acquisitions was divided into five teams based on either customer base or method of acquisition, and managed by the single department head (the only faculty-level librarian in the department). The Commonwealth Acquisitions Services Team (CAST) handled order processing for 20 campuses spread across Pennsylvania, while the Approval Program/Gifts (APG), Serials, and University Firm Order (UFO) teams dealt only with the University Park campus.

4 38 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) Materials and methods In order to make their final recommendations, the Monographs Task Force needed to have a thorough grasp of the issues that confronted them. To accomplish this, the following plan was formulated: 1. Benchmark with other institutions of similar size. 2. Query various electronic listservs to determine best practices. 3. Solicit input from all corners of the University Libraries on areas for improvement within the monographic production process. 4. Thoroughly review the current monographs workflow. The Task Force contacted five institutions of similar size and organizational structure to establish benchmarks: University of California at Berkeley, Indiana University, Ohio State University, Northwestern University, and the University of Washington. It then contacted administrators in each of their technical services departments and asked the following questions: 1. Please describe your current monographic acquisitions and cataloging organizational structure. 2. If the current workflow/structure differs from one recently in place, what factors led to the change? 3. If your structure is not new, are you considering a reorganization? Why or why not? 4. What works best about your current structure? 5. What does not work well about your current structure? 6. Does your institution use an integrated library system (ILS)? If yes, which one? 7. How large is your collection? How many monographic items do you receive and catalog annually? 8. What is the size and composition of staff devoted to monographic acquisitions and cataloging? 9. How are you currently handling the acquisition and cataloging of web-based monographic resources? 10. Do you outsource any acquisitions or cataloging functions? Do you use PromptCat? Do you receive any of your monographs as shelf ready? As it happened, most of these institutions had either recently undergone a major reorganization, or were in the process of reorganizing. Thus, they were able to provide the Task Force with considerable useful feedback. The following is a summary of their responses, both positive and negative Positive 1. By transferring rapid cataloging functions to acquisitions, cataloging could focus more attention on analytic work and special projects.

5 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) All staff possessed a better understanding of the complete monographic workflow. As a result, they had greater problem-solving skills, made fewer mistakes at the beginning of the process, and were more flexible when it came to shifting workflow priorities Negative 1. Many cataloging staff members were concerned about the possible reduction in quality (no authority checking of series; only one subject heading per record). 2. Some of the copy cataloging staff found the transition to acquisitions difficult. They felt that the work was beneath them (i.e., the tasks weren t as challenging as those involved with cataloging). In addition, the Ohio State University contact recommended creating a set of guidelines for separating complex and rapid cataloging materials and shared the guidelines that they were using at that time [7]. Concurrently the Task Force sent inquiries to five electronic library-related lists (AUTO- CAT [cataloging and authority control discussion forum], MLA-L [Music Library Association], OLAC-LIST [Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.], ACQNET [acquisitions and collection development discussion forum], and LIBSUP [library support staff discussion forum]) in search of additional feedback. These messages explained the task force s charge, and asked if institutions of similar size and organizational structure to Penn State would be willing to share relevant experiences. The Task Force received over forty responses to their inquiry from a wide range of institutions. The majority of the responses were positive in nature, pointing out the reduction in both handoffs and duplicate work and the staff s better overall understanding of the entire technical services process. Additionally, many of these institutions offered to provide future feedback should additional questions from the task force arise. The negative responses were minimal but no less passionate, and focused on the perceived loss of quality in the copy cataloging process. Other negative replies stemmed from the fact that the change had been imposed on the staff by the administration without any attempt to solicit their input or include them as active participants in the reorganization. Next, the task force solicited input from the Penn State University Libraries staff and faculty concerning the entire monographic overflow. It was especially interested in obtaining feedback from the Acquisitions and Cataloging staff, as they would be most affected by any proposed reorganization. Not surprisingly, the Cataloging staff echoed the same concern over diminishing quality that had appeared in both the benchmarking and the electronic list feedback. The Cataloging staff also looked at acquisitions work as less challenging than that of cataloging, and the majority displayed a lack of interest in learning the ordering and claiming processes. Conversely, the Acquisitions staff was interested in learning the copycataloging portion of the monographic workflow, in order to improve Technical Service s overall turnaround time. The task force now had solid information from the survey of peer institutions, the responses from the listservs, and the results of the internal interviews. They were now ready

6 40 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) to examine the complete monographic acquisitions and cataloging process, from pre-order searching to the physical processing of an item. For each step of the process a list of possible changes was compiled that would help to maximize overall efficiency. The Task Force identified three of the proposed changes as the basis for all subsequent recommendations: 1. Enter the best record as early in the process as possible. 2. Minimize the number of handoffs. 3. Instill an understanding of the complete monographic process by everyone involved in technical services. 5. Recommendations of the PSU Monographs Task Force The recommendations of the Monographs Task Force fell into two areas: staffing (including management staffing) and training. Staffing changes were recommended that would provide Acquisitions Services staff enough personnel, where most needed, so that they could expand their FastCat responsibilities. These recommendations included: Y Moving one position from Cataloging Services to Acquisitions Services. Y Moving two positions from the University Firm Order (UFO) team to the Approval Plan & Gifts (APG) team. Y Moving one position from the University Firm Order (UFO) team to Commonwealth Acquisitions Services Team (CAST) during months of heavy workload. The Task Force used Acquisitions Services teams monthly statistics to predict the number of staff needed to complete their work, and encouraged Acquisitions Services teams to monitor their workflow and address the changing needs of the three units in a proactive manner. With regard to training, the Task Force recommended that Acquisitions Services staff be trained to search OCLC and/or RLIN for cataloging copy for monographic materials in order to enter the best record into the catalog at the earliest possible point. This would meet the goals to increase the number of items that can be cataloged upon receipt, and to decrease both the number of handoffs and the number of times any particular item was searched. Acquisitions staff are also to be trained to complete the cataloging on additional categories of materials (i.e., CIP [Cataloging In Publication]). Again, this will decrease the number of handoffs within Technical Services. Finally, the Task Force recommended that Acquisitions staff be cross-trained within Acquisitions to provide greater flexibility. These recommendations addressed the Task Force s charge to examine the cataloging process to increase its efficiency and promote an integrated workflow. Two factors made it more difficult for the Task Force to predict an ideal staffing level for Cataloging Services. In the past the workflow in Cataloging was based on items ordered and received. However this is no longer the case. The current workflow is based upon projects, which vary in size, priority, complexity and number. Also, one of the results of increased efficiency in cataloging is that the more quickly an attempt is made to catalog an item, the

7 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) less likely there will be good cataloging copy available for it. So, as more cataloging is done upon receipt, the burden on those who do original or complex copy cataloging increases. The Task Force recommended that no other staffing changes be made in Cataloging and Acquisitions. The structure of Cataloging consists of one department head, one coordinator, six faculty librarians and five self-directed work teams. The structure of Acquisitions consists of one department head, one trainer, and three self-directed work teams. The Task Force recommended however that the unit be renamed Acquisitions and Rapid Cataloging Services. 6. Implementation of the recommendations Implementing the Task Force s recommendations was to be done in two stages. Immediate actions included the staffing changes and training. One person was to be moved from Cataloging to Acquisitions, and two people were to be moved from the University Firm Order (UFO) team to the Approval Plan & Gifts (APG) team, in order to meet the increased need for copy cataloging upon receipt of new monographs. In addition, the Acquisitions staff were to receive training in searching OCLC and RLIN, so that they could import the best record at the earliest stage possible. This was originally intended to address monographic material only; however, the plan was expanded later to include scores, audiovisual materials, and cartographic materials. Finally, all Acquisitions staff were to be trained to complete CIP copy upon receipt, and the number of different types of items that were to be referred to Cataloging would decrease. Influenced by Ohio State University s list, the Task Force created a set of guidelines to assist Acquisitions staff in the overall copy cataloging workflow (see Appendix B). Future actions recommended by the Task Force include expanding the number of shelf ready receipts, investigating a no-returns approval plan from Yankee Book Plan, reducing the number of surrogates sent to Cataloging for processing by training more campus staff to do added copies and volumes, and re-examining the workflow after implementation of the new ILS, Sirsi s Unicorn system. 7. Current state of implementation One year after these recommendations were made there has been some progress in completing many of them. This has been hampered by the implementation of the new ILS, which has become the Libraries top priority. Efforts that would have gone into training to meet the goals listed above were spent preparing for and training on the new ILS. One position has been moved from Cataloging to Acquisitions (though Acquisitions had decided not to implement the recommended internal staffing changes) and the Acquisitions staff have begun OCLC training. Currently, many Acquisitions staff are able to search OCLC during the ordering stage for monographic copy where they try to import the best record at the earliest stage in the process. For scores, audiovisual materials, and cartographic materials, Acquisitions staff search locally mounted MARC files at the order stage, and if they find no

8 42 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) record there, they enter a minimal-level record to which they attach the order. OCLC training for non-book materials is planned for early fall 2001, after the migration to SIRSI Unicorn is complete and after Unicorn s Z39.50 interface (SmartPort) has been fully configured. In the meantime, Cataloging personnel are evaluating and revising their documentation. Also in winter 2002, Acquisitions staff will begin training to complete CIP copy. 8. Conclusions Because of other projects and initiatives underway throughout the library and technical services, it is possible to evaluate only a few of the changes made to monographic processing. Acquisitions staff report that their jobs have been made easier by being permitted to search OCLC and RLIN for cataloging copy at the order stage. They have saved keying time by doing this and have been able to process their orders more quickly. The tangible benefits to Cataloging of pre-order searching are not quantifiable at this early point in their implementation. However, it is clear that pre-order searching should speed the workflow in Cataloging, as it will be more likely that a full-level record will have been imported early in the process, and Cataloging will be less likely to have to search for copy. In addition, since much of the copy cataloging is now taking place in Acquisitions Services, it allows Cataloging Services staff to spend more time working on projects and authority work. Some conclusions can be drawn based on the endeavors of the Monographs Task Force. First, it is essential to include the staff in any kind of evaluation process. The results of the Task Force s benchmarking reinforced very strongly that some of the negative results associated with reengineering a workflow came from not including staff in the decisionmaking process. Second, it is clear that the challenges of managing multiple projects simultaneously can be detrimental to the timeliness of implementing new initiatives. The work of the Task Force took place at the same time as four very important initiatives: 1) after the reorganization of the Serials Department; 2) during the preparation for the move of all of Technical Services from temporary to permanent quarters; 3) during the search for a new department head; and 4) during the early phases of a migration to a new ILS. The actual implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force was preempted by the migration as departmental priorities shifted to learning the intricacies of the new system. Third, the results of the Task Force have shown that it is advantageous to periodically reexamine interdepartmental processes. It is clear that Technical Services has benefited from studying and understanding the entire process of how a monograph moves through the system from ordering to the shelf. This greater organizational understanding has resulted in streamlined workflows and improved interdepartmental communication. References [1] Technical Services redesign archive. [2] Propas S. Rearranging the universe: reengineering, reinventing, and recycling. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 1997;21(2):

9 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) [3] Bloss A, Lanier D. The library department head in the context of matrix management and reengineering. College & Research Libraries 1997;58: [4] Slight-Gibney N. Fastcat. Acquisitions Librarian 1995;13/14: [5] Easton C. New innovation in cataloging: the impact of technology on copy cataloging. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 1997;21:62 3. [6] Beall J. The impact of vendor records on cataloging and access in academic libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services 2000;24(2): [7] Ohio State University Copy Cataloging Guidelines: Monographs Department.

10 44 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 35 45

11 R.B. Freeborn, R.L. Mugridge / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002)