Home

 

Recommendations

Introduction. In any high-performing organization, the search for new efficiencies is a constant and never-ending process. By finding new ways of doing things better, we can stimulate innovation, productivity, and professional growth, and free up more time to collaborate on ground-breaking developments occurring at Yale and across our profession. More efficient workflows will enable us to devote more energy to the digital library infrastructure and metadata consulting services for which there is much demand and to which our staff is uniquely well-qualified.[1] Moreover, with Collection Space Management (and the accelerated rate of LSF-transfer on which it depends) having been identified as the Library’s highest priority, our department has an opportunity to support this goal by getting eligible materials cataloged and routed to LSF as expeditiously as possible. Toward these ends, the head of the catalog department and team leaders are putting forward the following 9 proposals:

I. Revisit Criteria for LSF transfers [S.R.A.]

A. Cataloging Standards

In order to accelerate cataloging of backlog items designated for LSF, consider changing Yale’s default cataloging standard to non-PCC core (i.e., encoding level 4).[2] Also: consider revising local policy to require that authority records be created only on second occurrence of name in catalog (which is already the practice for Southeast Asian cataloging). Also: Consider using unstructured keyword fields to supplement the single LCSH string required by core standard.[3]

BENEFITS:

1. Reduced encoding level, and/or revised local policy, saves time by requiring creation of fewer authority records.

2. Use of keyword field saves time on training and using complex LCSH rules and syntax

3. Less complicated procedures may better enable non-professional (perhaps E-level) staff, to do more original cataloging

BARRIERS:

1. May be appropriate for only certain classes of materials, e.g., items classed separately

2. Doesn’t directly benefit Collection Space Management (CSM)[4]

B. Call Numbers

Given the fact that split files have already become pervasive in our catalog, and that the item barcode has emerged as the de facto unique identifier for most items, consider abbreviating or discontinuing the assignment of call numbers.

BENEFITS

1. Mitigates the most time-consuming aspect of belletristic cataloging;[5]

2. Does not violate PCC standards (since fully shelf-listed numbers are not required)

3. While items retrieved from LSF are arranged by call number; these could be arranged instead by barcode.

4. Easier to reclassify belletristic split files (since need for re-labeling is eliminated)

BARRIERS

1. If incomplete number is assigned, confusion may later occur when items that do need complete numbers are shelflisted

2. If no call number is assigned, some kind of place-holder may need to be inserted in the 852 field

3. If no number is used for a belletristic work, may become necessary to add notes or genre headings, since excluding call number can exclude access to language

4. Risk of political fallout if some items cataloged for LSF get call numbers while others don’t

5. Doesn’t directly benefit CSM

II. Make non-PCC Core level default for current material [P.T.] (cf. IA above)

BENEFITS

1. Reduced need for authority control (when opting for non-PCC standard) may speed up cataloging

2. PCC would continue to be (for professional staff: preferred?) option

BARRIERS

1. If we create too many non-PCC records, peer institutions might start considering us ‘bad neighbors’

2. Reduced output of authority records could weaken PCC

3. Reduced output of authority records could weaken skills of Yale catalogers (since high quality authority work presupposes rigorous training and constant application)

III. Reconsider shelflisting (Collocation) practices

A. Editions. Stop trying to keep editions together on shelf. Accept other libraries’ call numbers for subsequent editions.

BENEFITS:

1. time saved at front end, by allowing more items to be processed through FastCat or other rapid cataloging

BARRIERS

1. time lost at back end, if, for example, it becomes increasingly difficult for original catalogers to determine appropriate call numbers in an increasingly disorganized shelflist. E.g.: How will we class a 3^rd edition if the 1^st and 2^nd editions have been given different call numbers? (one answer: class 3^rd with 2^nd or latest cataloged ed.)

2. Erodes browsability of stacks

B.FastCat. Expand FastCat to include non-LC copy

BENEFITS:

1. more items with full copy processed more rapidly (or on receipt)

BARRIERS

1. another department would need to agree; we have no authority to decide for them

2. Erodes browsability of stacks

C.Shelflist against LC rather than Orbis

BENEFITS

1. Assuming long-term commitment, and sustained funding levels at LC, eventually (over hundreds of years?) reconstitutes coherent shelf arrangement, with earlier Yale cuttering decisions becoming an increasingly small percentage of total

BARRIERS

1. No guarantee that Yale commitment to LC-assigned shelflisting will be sustained over long-term (see, e.g., proposals I-B and III-B, above, which would have us either discontinue call number assignment or accept numbers from non-LC libraries)

D. Stop shelflisting altogether

BENEFITS

1. time gained at front end (see III-A)

2. Tool could be designed or adapted to flag duplicate call numbers electronically[6] (in which case inconsistencies would be tolerated but not duplications)

BARRIERS

1. May simply shift costs to those doing original cataloging (see III-A )[7]

2. Increases number of split files; erodes browsability of stacks

E. Stop shelflisting, but accept LCC call number from any library

BENEFITS:

1. We already accept LC-assigned numbers, identified with a trailing x; We could similarly accept other LCC call numbers, and identify them with a different trailing letter

BARRIERS

1. Increases number of split files; erodes browsability of stacks

IV. Expand Range of Duties for Level E staff [T.O.]

Job description to include the following:

1. Oversees complex catalog maintenance activities in local cataloging system. May include updating bibliographical information, holdings, transfers, deletes, and withdrawals; resolves problems with complex bibliographic and holdings records

2. Trains, assigns, and revises work of C&T staff and student assistants; plans and oversees special projects and assignments as directed by team leader

3. Reviews and distributes incoming materials based on priority and subject responsibilities; may oversee long and short term team backlogs

4. Assigns LC classification numbers, based on subject headings, to otherwise fully-cataloged materials[8]

BENEFITS: Makes best possible use of new E classification, relieving catalog librarians to focus on more demanding tasks

BARRIERS: E-level classification is largely uncharted territory. May take time for positions to congeal into something predictable.

V. Implement new “Standard Routing Form” for all materials sent to catalog department[9] [R.K.]

BENEFITS

1. Accountability (“Where do I go if there’s a problem?”)

2. Provides clear information about record type (since LC, Member, Full, Core, etc., are indicated on form)

3. No unnecessary re-searching (since previous RLIN/OCLC search date indicated on form)

4. Increases use of standards in preliminary records

5. Facilitates triage; reduces confusion

6. Could replace “member copy” and “LC call number” flags

BARRIERS

1. Some units may resist taking on searching responsibilities

2. Difficult to enforce beyond our own department

3. Some staff reluctant to adhere to standards

VII. Reconsider treatment of certain titles acquired both in Print and electronic form [D.S.]

A. Discontinue cataloging analytic titles for which full text searching and retrieval is available in electronic form.

Do we really need provide cataloging for analytic titles that are available in full text online to Yale community? Is there any alternative way of providing access to these analytics?

If we can use the cover series/set title to provide links to the individual titles through one of the following options, we will increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of cataloging analytics.

OPTIONS

1. General (500) note to indicate that all analytic titles are available online at the publisher/vendor’s website and give the URL for the site.

2. Separate 856 fields for individual analytic titles

3. Separate MFHD records for analytic titles

BENEFITS

1. Easy access to analytic titles (possibly along with full text) online

2. Simplified cataloging workflow

3. More timely processing of analytic titles

4. Cost savings[10]

BARRIERS

1. Inadequate description for analytic titles

2. Possible lengthy notes or MFHD records for individual titles

3. User education issues

4. Stability of publisher’s website; backup issue

B. Reconsider cataloging practices for Yale dissertations. Yale dissertations available in full text through ProQuest; no longer essential to collect and catalog microfilm copies. Explore with RSC and M&A possibility of discontinuing cataloging of microfilm versions

BENEFITS

1. Reduce/eliminate backlog of Yale dissertation microfilm

2. Release D level staff to catalog other materials[11]

3. Eliminate cost of purchasing and processing unneeded materials

BARRIERS

1. Increased reliance on vendor (stability, backup concerns)

2. Other stakeholders may resist (e.g., if ProQuest were to be, for whatever reason, inaccessible, concern that readers might want to consult and thereby put at risk original manuscript dissertations)

VIII. Automate some cataloging statistics Compilation (cf. techniques used at Cornell and UConn) [E.J.]

IX. Use blog to track “cataloging problems” and solutions [D.S.L]

BENEFITS

(1) Facilitates collaboration through virtual common workspace

(2) Extremely easy to set up and use; simpler than Dreamweaver/SSH for posting archives or documentation

(3) Avoids having to solve same problem multiple times

(4) Software is free

BARRIERS

(1) Resistance to unfamiliar technology

(2) Difficult to index postings by topic (though automatically archived by date)

Conclusion. New ideas and changing technologies have made some of our routines less essential, and in some cases more redundant, than perhaps they once were. The rise of cooperative cataloging, for example, together with procedures for cataloging upon receipt, have enabled rapid processing of the most commonly purchased materials, thereby releasing staff to provide fuller cataloging for the most challenging and highly-valued items; improvements in the relationship between Yale and its unions have given us the new E-level job category, making it possible to identify and recognize support staff members capable of more sophisticated work, thereby helping both the individual and organization more fully realize their potential; fully searchable full-text databases have reduced the need for exhaustive cataloging of print analytics and dissertations microfilms; advances in server technology and open source software have given us blogs and wikis, powerful, freely-available tools with which to exchange ideas and document progress. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that there are real risks and potential pitfalls that accompany any major workflow changes. For this reason we have tried to identify the barriers that each of our proposals would face in implementation. Some of these are substantial and warrant close consideration. Still, the fact remains that by identifying inefficiencies and finding ways to eliminate them, we better prepare ourselves to meet the challenges ahead—digital library infrastructure development, metadata consulting, complex physical and intellectual collection management, to name a few—and to do so with maximum foresight, intelligence, and confidence.