ACQNET v3n010 (February 9, 1993) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v3n010 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 10, February 9, 1993 ======================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (9 lines) (2) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Cataloging in acquisitions (63 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Cataloging in acquisitions (58 lines) (4) FROM: Nancy Knipe SUBJECT: Technical services organization (20 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: February 9, 1993 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Barry B. Baker Assistant Director for Technical Services University of Georgia Libraries E-mail: BBAKER@UGA.BITNET (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Feb 1993 09:33:41 U From: Joyce Ogburn (Yale University) Subject: Copy cataloging in acquisitions When the Acquisitions Department at Yale was reorganized a year and a half ago, we decided to incorporate copy cataloging into the receiving process. We call our process "fastcat." As books are ordered, we look for LC copy on the tapes we have loaded as a resource file to our NOTIS system (Orbis). If LC copy is found it is pulled over into the main bibliographic file as the basis for the order. This record is then used for cataloging when books are received. If there was no record at the ordering stage, a brief record is entered and when the item is received and an LC record is then available, the LC copy is pulled over to replace the brief record. We accept LC copy as is, add an "X" to the end of the call number (so that we don't have to check the shelf list) and the book goes off for review, marking, etc. There are certain classes (such as literature) of books we don't catalog because our practices have differed from those of LC. We are going to re-examine this issue to see whether the benefits of copy cataloging outweigh the disadvantages perceived with our deviation from LC policy. Both full copy and CIP are accepted. For CIP copy, we upgrade the record to have complete descriptive information. We do not use any copy from bibliographic utilities. Use of copy from RLIN and OCLC for copy cataloging is only done in the cataloging teams. We haven't had any discussions of whether to expand fastcat to include copy from utilities. We loaded the LC serials tapes last fall and are using them as well for the order process. We have begun using them for clean up of records and for title changes in the serials receiving unit. We are also going to talk about doing fastcat for serials, but have not done so yet. Eventually we will want to take advantage of receiving bibliographic records from our vendors and to incorporate these into the fastcat process. Other acquisitions units at Yale are doing fastcat as well. The benefits we perceived as these: 1) if copy is found at the point of order, the cataloging process has already begun; 2) if the copy is available at the point of receipt, the record is touched only once, as the receiver does all the work to indicate receipt and to catalog the work; 3) if the book received is an approval or standing order title, an LC record can be pulled over to create the receipt record and cataloging record all at one time; and 4) books are available for use by patrons more quickly. Additionally, materials that are fastcatted do not have to leave the department; they move from the receiving units directly to the preparations unit. The monograph receiving unit has cataloged an average of about 1,000 titles per month. It is too early to report statistics from serials. Books are cataloged before they are reviewed by selectors. Occasionally location changes are made or books are returned to the vendor (approvals), so the record must be touched once again. This does not happen often enough to detract from the overall benefits of the fastcat process. We were confident that the process would work because the staff who make up the receiving units have backgrounds in cataloging from the previous organization. This, however, is not a prerequisite for taking on copy cataloging. All acquisitions staff have to be well-versed in the use of the LC records and MARC formats to perform their acquisitions functions anyway. We feel that the fastcat process allows us to offer a better service to our patrons by getting the material to them faster and by having good records on line as quickly as possible. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 93 10:03:28 EST From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) Subject: Cataloging upon receipt At Emory our cataloging staff for many years have done what I consider "cataloging upon receipt" for our domestic approval plan books. To understand this, you need to have a little background information about our systems. In 1987 the General Libraries implemented DOBIS, an IBM-based integrated library system developed in Europe, but not the acquisitions module thereof. The existing, in-house developed automated acquisitions system was in no way publicly accessible or even staff accessible except through a complicated printed report called the "processing list." Consequently, for approval plan books, the routine was for the books to go on the shelves and be reviewed by collection management staff within one week (pre-order staff searched the titles to make sure they weren't already owned or on order simultaneously with the review process). Selected books were then sent to the cataloging staff, who updated and imported to DOBIS an appropriate OCLC record within one week of the approval plan books having been received. The books never went through an individual receiving/invoicing process in Acquisitions. With the advent of DOBIS acquisitions, this changed, but only slightly. Automatically-shipped domestic approval plan books still go directly to the Catalog Department after having been selected and records get imported to DOBIS from OCLC without the books ever going through the receiving/invoicing process. (Of course, we pay our domestic approval plan on a deposit account basis, so we don't need to invoice individual titles on this plan; that's probably very different from most institutions' pattern.) On the other hand, the Acquisitions Department is now responsible for creating a publicly-accessible in process record for all foreign approval plan books, all gift books, all classed separately monographic series volumes, and all individual titles in bulk purchases. It took as little while, but not too long, to realize that creating in process records for book in hand materials is quite different from putting together a moderately acceptable brief bibliographic record for firm order purposes. Given the great burdens our automated system imposes on catalog maintenance activities, we soon realized that it was important for Acquisitions to select the best possible record for the book in hand. Even though we don't take the cataloging process to the point of assigning a call number, we are after a fashion doing "cataloging upon receipt" for these materials by identifying the most appropriate extant OCLC record for each title. Other institutions, of course, have tackled this problem from a radically different direction--and we may yet do so, but not before we implement a successor system to DOBIS. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 09 Feb 1993 10:23:53 -0700 (MST) From: Nancy Knipe (Colorado College) Subject: Technical services organization I think a discussion of reorganization(s) within acquisitions and technical services would be very useful. Technology --as well as economics-- has had an impact on how we do our jobs and who does them. To address some of these changing needs, we have been experimenting with a cross-training program in Technical Services at Colorado College. Cataloging technicians are learning acquisitions procedures and Acquisitions technicians are learning to catalog on both OCLC and our local system. The aim is to provide some back-up and more flexibility to respond to needs where and when they exist in workflow. The downside is the additional pressure put on staff who already have plenty to do. Whether we can maintain the initial training at an effective level overtime is another concern. What I do see happening is a better understanding of what is involved in the workflow as a departmental unit, and several suggestions for changes have emerged that improve overall effectiveness. Since the cross-training has only been in process for a few months, long term results are yet to be seen. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 10 ****** END OF FILE *******