1. ReCAP Summary: East Asian Library Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 7/12/2010

2. ReCAP Summary Opened in 2002 with 3 modules 5 modules now complete, housing more than 8 million books CUL: 3.6, NYPL: 2.8, PU: 1.6 Module 8 begins construction FY13, completed FY15 (projected) http://recap.princeton.edu/ Quotas outline space use and staffing needsQuotas

3. What is the purpose of ReCAP? 1.Provide quick, accurate access to low- use materials (shelving) 2.Accommodate under-processed archive and print collections (storage) 3.Alleviate over-crowding of onsite collections (shelving/storage)

4. 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

5. ReCAP Facility

6. ReCAP is a modular facility

7. Accession: Step 1 glx circ 0012345 ColumbiaReCAP

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

9. Terms: Customer CodeCustomer Code How ReCAP systems controls access Customer codes are two- or three-letter codes assigned to library collections Used to control access permissionsaccess permissions Critical to the ongoing transfer, management and access to off-site collections Customer codes represent one of three things: 1) Delivery location, 2) Collection or 3) Delivery location and Collection.

10. 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# 3879176 –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# 3393111 (Lehman) –Error message displays when button clicked –Request fails unbeknownst to patron –Bad citation –Bad email address Maintenance (Staff involved: CUL) –Holdings record with RECAP LOAD in history is deleted and replaced with new holdings. Ex. BIBL# 6622249 –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#106440 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)

11. Scale Givens: ReCAP is large and involves many staff ReCAP systems are quick and efficient Economics of scale Questions: Have we made effective decisions? Have we made efficient decisions? How do we know?

12. ReCAP Collections Analysis: East Asian Library Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 8/18/09

13. Answers to Basic Questions How many books transferred? What is retrieval rate? Where are EA collections delivered? EA in overall picture of ReCAP? What titles are high use? Who is using EA off-site collections? What data are available to look at?

14. Delivery Destination of Off-site EA Collections

15. EA Off-site Holdings by Language

16. RBML and ReCAP: Summary of Progress Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 4/12/2010

17. Standing Meetings Began October 2009 at Lea Osborne’s suggestion Weekly Addressed delivery locations, tracking and oversight

18. Outcomes Shipping & Receiving delivery point (CS) Implementation of Voyager Circulation Module Dynamic tracking mechanism: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/insid e/clio/statistics/offsite/ https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/insid e/clio/statistics/offsite/ Packing (preservation) documentation RBML/ReCAP website: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/r ecap/rbml.html https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/r ecap/rbml.html

19. Burke and ReCAP: Summary of Progress Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 4/19/2010

20. Burke ReCAP Website Project details from Nov. 2006-Aug. 2008 Website includes goals, summary and documentationWebsite Zack will update to contain more detail about transfer history and encoding

21. Deliveries to Burke Circulation

22. Collections Delivered to Burke

23. Destination of Burke Requests

24. Retrieval of General Collections

25. Retrieval of Special Collections

26. Retrieval Rate of CUL Collections at ReCAP Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 6/8/2010

27. The Issue Growing concern about the retrieval rate of ReCAP collections Retrieval volume constantly, consistently grows Retrieval rate has also grown Billing model at ReCAP now based on “activity units” More retrieval = more cost

28. Core of Today’s Discussion

29. What This Illustrates Retrieval rate for recent publications in English (and French) is high English language monographs published since 1990 all have retrieval rate higher than target New retrieved more than old

30. Paths to Lower Retrieval Rate Do not transfer high-use or potential high- use material Return high-use items to onsite shelving Limit patron access Each option has benefits, consequences and complications