Re-evaluating technical services workflow for integrated library systems

Transcription

1 Pergamon Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002) Re-evaluating technical services workflow for integrated library systems Robert Congleton* Serials Librarian, Rider University, 2083 Lawrence Road, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA 1. Introduction Most integrated library automation systems have maintained the traditional division of technical services into cataloging, monograph acquisitions, and serials modules. These divisions reflect the typical workflow/processing procedures performed in technical services. The modules allowed conversion of staff tasks from manual to automated processes without disrupting the duties performed by each unit or department. As vendors and automation systems introduced new features, processing routines changed to incorporate the new features but still retained the traditional division of labor between cataloging and acquisitions. New technologies such as electronic books or journals, EDI ordering and invoicing, and importing of full bibliographic records, have been incorporated into the workflow. While some libraries have taken the opportunity offered by new technology and changed parts of their processing routines, many have retained the traditional division of labor between acquisitions, serials and cataloging. Not changing workflow may fail to take advantage of the integrated system s functionality. Since technical services modules are linked and accessible from each workstation, the distinction between tasks done in acquisitions and work done solely in cataloging is blurred. The functionality of most modern automation systems offers the opportunity to smooth technical services workflow by combining processes performed at one workstation and reducing the number of staff that handle material in the processing flow. One way to begin to re-evaluate technical services workflow is by initiating a crosstraining program. Cross-training has usually been used to give staff a greater understanding of the library beyond their everyday responsibilities. Cross-training is effective in enhancing the job skills of staff, increasing communication and co-operation across departments or departmental units, and enables a library to have staff that can step in and assist in other units * Tel.: address: rcongleton@rider.edu (R. Congleton) /02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S (02)

2 338 R. Congleton / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) during times of staff shortages. Such assistance does not require staff to leave their own workstations. By utilizing the different modules in a library automation system, acquisitions staff can assist with cataloging and cataloging staff can create orders or receive items. However, while cross-training can be very useful in teaching additional job skills or dealing with staff shortages, it does not streamline the processing of material in technical services. Even having staff work in other units on a regular schedule does not require adjustments in departmental responsibilities or workflow. One good feature of cross-training is that it requires technical services staff to learn the entire processing routines employed to get material ordered, received, cataloged and out to the shelf for library patrons. As each technical services department or unit learns how their work is related to work in other units they will be more open to revising procedures and will be better prepared to offer suggestions on how such revision could be accomplished. Cross-training is a good preliminary starting point, though not a requirement, for reevaluation of technical services routines. What does need to be included is a full analysis and evaluation of the entire workflow scheme. Such an evaluation is best served by creating a committee made up of members, both professional and support staff, of all areas of technical services. Members should be aware of the capabilities of the automation system and the system s limitations, as well as knowledge of the processing workflows in each area. Through cross-training staff would be aware of both system capabilities and processing schemes. Once a committee is organized, its members need to review the entire processing routine from moment of order to patrons finally accessing the material. It is worthwhile to map the entire workflow; including what unit/department handles each task and the reasons behind each step of the process. The number of times the material is sent to a different workstation during processing should also be included as well as the rationale for it. The committee needs to evaluate whether each step fully utilizes the functions available in the library s automation system, whether steps still requiring paper copy can more efficiently be done online (which may not always be the case), and whether duplication of work performed at various points of processing can be eliminated. In theory, an integrated library automation system enables most of the material processing procedures to be done at one workstation. An individual is able to order, receive, catalog, print labels, barcode, and process invoices at one workstation by shifting between functions offered by the automation system. This one stop-processing concept should be the starting point for re-organizing technical services workflow. For many libraries, special processing routines may make the one workstation-processing model impractical. But the idea should tighten the focus of any discussion on streamlining processing. Each library needs to consider how their procedures can be streamlined with an integrated system. The methods chosen will vary for each library. The differences would depend on the size of the library, number of branches, whether processing is centralized, number of staff, quality of the staff, and equipment needs. The following discussion will be concerned with general suggestions for technical services re-organization rather than specific recommendations for each type of library. One possible way to streamline procedures and make better use of the automation system would be to eliminate the traditional units in technical services. Monograph and serials

3 R. Congleton / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) acquisitions processes could be combined into one unit; copy cataloging could be incorporated into the acquisitions workflow rather than as a separate unit; all finishing unit tasks (barcoding, labeling, security stripping) could also be incorporated into the check-in/receiving process on an integrated system. Combining monograph and serials acquisitions would remove some of the mystique associated with serials. Monograph and serials unit staff would check-in books, standing orders, and periodicals. Claims would also be handled jointly, though most integrated automation systems have separate claiming databases for monograph and serials. Serials processing also has other matters to consider that differ from monograph receiving: flagging issues to be pulled for binding; discarding paper issues replaced by microfilm; pulling previous editions of items having limited retention. These additional aspects of serials processing make combining monograph and serials acquisitions more problematic and libraries need to consider whether it is better to have staff devoted to only serials and serials control rather than all of acquisitions. Even if the division between serials and monographs is maintained, all acquisitions staff should be cross-trained for both monograph and serials processing. Cross-training would allow staff to be moved back and forth between units during times of backlogs, special projects or staff shortages. Merging copy cataloging with both serials and monographs would require training acquisitions staff to search national databases such as RLIN or OCLC. Staff would have to be able to distinguish good bibliographic records by looking at certain fields in the record. A full bibliographic record would then be imported to the library s automation system and used for order/check-in record creation. This new task could be incorporated into acquisitions workflow at either the point of order creation or receipt. If the material being ordered is new, staff may not be able to find a full bibliographic record. The library may alternatively arrange to purchase full bibliographic records from a vendor. These purchased records would be available once the vendor processed the order or sent the material. Many libraries have been able to save time and steps in the workflow by importing bibliographic records at time of receipt rather than at time of order. Libraries should decide whether to accept the full bibliographic record as is or train acquisitions staff to add local fields and notes when the bibliographic record is imported. Materials requiring extensive editing of the bibliographic record or requiring original cataloging should be sent to the professional cataloger. Merging copy cataloging with acquisitions would free copy cataloging staff for other duties. Depending on the number of copy cataloging staff, some could be transferred to acquisitions, and others could be re-assigned to other areas of cataloging such as electronic resources and special formats. Once bibliographic records are imported by acquisitions at the time of receipt, it would be quite easy to have acquisitions staff add item records and barcodes at the same time the material is received. Most integrated library systems permit this as part of the acquisitions processing workflow. Acquisitions staff would also be able to produce labels and insert security strips as part of the receiving process. As with copy cataloging staff, finishing unit staff would then be reassigned to other units. Another change made possible by an ILS is the way selectors/bibliographers in collection development are able to notify acquisitions of new order requests. Many automated systems allow selectors to create brief order records that can be used for order requests. This

4 340 R. Congleton / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) simplifies the order request procedure. The brief order/request records would include title, issn or isbn, author or corporate body, publisher, date of publication or first volume wanted. Once the request record is entered, the online system would search for duplicates already in the library. This would save the step of manually searching for duplication that is often performed in collection development and acquisitions for the same order request. Acquisitions staff would then take the orders from the order request report or file and revise the requests into actual orders. One problem technology has not been able to solve is identifying duplication of standing orders or monographic series by firm orders. Often data on Choice cards or a publisher s booklist does not contain series information. If the information is not available, a selector will not enter any series title on the order request. The duplication will not be identified until the full bibliographic record is available. In this instance, it may be better to import the bibliographic record at time of order. But this would create problems with the processing workflow if a bibliographic record is not available at time of order. It would still be better to import a full bibliographic record at time of receipt and return the items that duplicate standing orders at that time. Original cataloging, authority control, database management would not be affected by the workflow changes discussed in the previous paragraphs. Catalogers would retain responsibility for reviewing and revising bibliographic records, even those imported by acquisitions. Supervision of staff would also remain the same. With any re-organization, attention must be given to the quality of staff and changes in staff responsibilities. Some staff will have problems learning and adjusting to new duties, particularly when those duties will be in a different department with a new supervisors. The flexibility of library staff may limit the number of changes that can be made in processing schemes. In addition, library administration should review what changes are recommended. New responsibilities will require new job descriptions that may require upgrades. This in turn will require a larger proportion of the library s budget being directed to staff salaries rather than resources. There would also be equipment needs, for example, more printers equipped to produce labels. But these budgetary increases should be offset by increased efficiency and productivity. Having one workstation perform as much of the processing of materials as possible would utilize the functionality available in most modern automation systems more efficiently than having the processing workflow allocated among separate units. Rather than have too many staff handling items and complete small portions of processing, an ILS offers the opportunity to smooth technical services workflow by combining processes performed at one workstation and eliminating unnecessary division of labor between traditional departmental separation of tasks. Bibliography Boss, Richard W. (1997). Options for acquisitions and serials control automation in libraries. Library Technology Reports, 33 (4),

5 R. Congleton / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) Bills, Linda. (2000). Technical services and integrated library systems. Library Hi Tech, 18 (2), Diedrichs, Carol Pitts. (1998). Using automation in technical services to foster innovation. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24 (2), El-Sherbini, Magda. (2001). Copy cataloguers and their changing roles at the Ohio State University Library: a case study. Library Management, 22 (1/2), Eustis, Joanne D., & Kenney, Donald J. (1996). Library reorganization & restructuring. SPEC Kit, 215, Gossen, Eleanor A., Reynolds, Frances, & Ricker, Karina. (1990). Forging new communication links in an academic library: a cross-training experiment at SUNY/Albany. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 16 (Mar.), Howarth, Lynne C. (1998). The role of the paraprofessional in technical services in libraries. Library Trends, 46 (3), Johnson, Kay G., Somers, Michael A., & Whiting, Peter C. (1998). From specialists to generalists: issues and perspectives on cross-training catalogers. Serials Librarian, 34 (3/4), Johnson, Peggy. (1996). Planning and implementing a cross-training program. College & Research Libraries News, 57 (10), Moran, Barbara B. (2001). Restructuring the university library: a North American perspective. Journal of Documentation, 57 (1), Rankin, Juliann E. (2000). A decade of restructuring at Meriam Library, California State University, Chico. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 13 (1), Ten Have, Elizabeth Davis. (1993). Serials in strategic planning and reorganization. Serials Review, 19 (2), 7 13.