ReCAP Update: Tech Services Librarians Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator Columbia University 4/29/2010

Summary How ReCAP systems work (and don’t work) Current Projects –ASCC –CCMSCC –Interns/GAs Data analysis

ReCAP Systems CUL and ReCAP computer systems do not dynamically interact CUL systems are designed to keep in sync with ReCAP systems Requests placed through regular mechanisms or directly via ReCAP staffregular mechanisms

Processing (Staff involved: CUL) –Barcode attached to wrong volume (see 7a) Wrong bib record (bad recon) Smart barcode switch Mismatch of serial/set issues –Item prepared but never sent –Item with smart bc not found, not charged to missing –Item with smart bc found but not transferred, data not purged from record –Wrong customer code/CLIO location match (e.g. CM barcode/off,glx location) –Item transferred to ReCAP with barcode not in Voyager (“Orphan Offsite Barcode”) Barcode miskeyed Barcode not entered Transfer (Staff involved: CUL/Clancy-Cullen/ReCAP) –CLIO displays onsite location when in process for transfer –Onsite staging may not be accessible to patron –Delay in accessioning (normal timing is 2-4 weeks after transfer) –Single vol of set isn’t accessioned (sometimes CLIO location flips, sometimes not) Accession (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Barcode not entered/deleted from Voyager –Barcode scans incorrectly –Accession report never received –CLIO location doesn’t change after accession (charged at time of accession?) Ex: BIBL# –Barcode scanned under wrong customer code. Sol: Identify using Accessions data, sorting by customer code, barcode prefix and CLIO location Request (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP) –Request button doesn’t appear Misapplied off,xxx location. Problem during early stages of transfer; mostly eliminated by batch suppression. Short time delay between location flip and button appearance Presence of non-offsite Temp. Loc. during processing. Ex. BIBL# (Lehman) –Error message displays when button clicked –Request fails unbeknownst to patron –Bad citation –Bad address Maintenance (Staff involved: CUL) –Holdings record with RECAP LOAD in history is deleted and replaced with new holdings. Ex. BIBL# –OPAC message discourages patron, e.g. “ON –ORDER /IN PROCESS” –MFHD/Item has “off,xxx” location but has no offsite barcode. [12/09, not yet systematically addressed] –CLIO locations changed from “off,xxx” to “xxx” Ex. BIBL# Retrieval (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Book not filed “OUT” from ReCAP; ReCAP database thinks book is “IN” (Google Project specific?) Delivery (Staff involved: ReCAP/Bohrens/CUL) –S&R delivery delayed –S&R deliver to wrong library –ReCAP staff puts book in wrong delivery tote Circulation (Staff involved: CUL/Patron) –Barcode does not correspond to correct bib record/enum/chron –Book not charged to patron (who may not return) –Items languish in processing departments; charged or not charged –Claim returns with offsite locations Not returned At bindery Slow return to ReCAP –Temp Loc and Type not removed E.g. Reserve books. Solution: Request report of off,xxx locations with Temp Loc. Return (Staff involved: Patron/CUL) –Mis-shelved onsite at returning library –Mis-shelved onsite at owning library (after routing) –Book is not discharged –In transit status is not removed (Can batch file be run for all off,xxx location with In transit?) –Overdue/Lost—System Applied is returned. Discharged but Lost status not removed. Still requestable in CLIO; not resolved by weekly reconciliation. Refiling (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Books are slow to be reshelved ILL (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP) –Request does not go through normal mechanism, item may be requested twice resulting in failure notice –Book never returned from loan (How to track?) EDD –Articles isn’t scanned Condition/binding Copyright Not found Insufficient information –Patron can’t access files Pop up blocker Problem with browser Unfamiliarity with technology –ReCAP Problems Files removed from server –re-installation of scanner (9/21/09)

Accession: Step 1 glx circ ColumbiaReCAP

Accession: Step 4 off,glx circ CU12345 CU [shelf#] ColumbiaReCAP

Item Status at ReCAP In and At Rest Out on Retrieval REFILE PWI /PWD NOT ON FILE

Queries to LAS (ReCAP database)

Access Services Committee EDD citation problems – erts.html#pagination High-volume requests – erts.html#20limit EDD privileges restricted to only current borrowers Notification – erts.html#

EDD Citation Requirements In response to ReCAP staff, CUL added pagination requirement to Request Form (Sept. 2009) Patron must enter content into Start and End Page fields Pop-up informs patron of requirement Current: Change to: AskUS

High Volume Request Limit On 11/5 CUL implemented a limit on the total volumes from single title during single request 20 volume limit Limit precedent from Prentis Pop-up alerts patron to limit and provides contact info

High Volume Request Limit Prevents large-scale and impulsive requests that put burden on CUL and ReCAP staff Maintains access to longer runs Pop-up provides staff contact info

Pop-up Display

EDD Update Any active UNI may be used to make physical and EDD requests from ReCAP Including printing UNIs Suggestion to restrict EDD requests to only current borrowers Permission matches other document delivery services: ILL, BD, HSL, etc. All UNIs may still request physical delivery

CCMSCC ReCAP Reports –Accession (weekly) –Reconciliation (weekly) –Permanent Withdrawal (dynamic/weekly) –BIND/INTR/LABL Overdue (quarterly) –NTRN (quarterly)

Interns/GA Music Library Project: Feb-Aug. 2009, resolve leftover barcodesMusic Library Project Search for mis-shelved books in the stacks: Spring/Summer 2009 MATOB resolution: Fall 2009/Spring 2010 Orphan Barcodes Business Library backlog Avery Library leftover smart barcodes

Data Analysis Retrieval Rate Publication Date/Language Time of Request Request Failures

Goals Provide relevant data and analysis to decision-making staff Inform selection process for direct-to- ReCAP transfers Help staff better inform patrons Assist policy creation

Retrieval Rate Retrieval rate is a measure of collection use Target retrieval rate is 2.00% Percentage of ReCAP collections retrieved during a twelve-month period (Calendar or FY) One technique to gauge overall use Important factor for ReCAP facility staffing model

Data Categories –Barcode –Delivery Location –Default Delivery Location –Date –Time –Type –Patron Group –Bib ID –Format –Publishing Date –Language –Title –Holdings ID –Call Number –Enumeration/Chronology –Item ID –CLIO Location –UNI –Hashed UNI –Year of Request –Month of Request –Day of Request –Hour of Request –Minute of Request

Request by Language 326,591 total requests different languages requested English accounts for 63.27% of all requests Top 10 languages account for 93.53% of all requests LanguageCountPercent eng % jpn % fre % chi % ger % spa % ita % rus % none % kor % ara % n/a % heb % hin % per % tur % por % lat % urd % pol %

Retrieval Rate by Pub Date/Language

Time of Use

Day of Use

Request Failures

Zack Takes Questions