1. Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator August 13, 2012 ReCAP Columbia University

2.  Review of ReCAP operations ◦ Physical plant ◦ Systems  Data ◦ What there is to look at ◦ Basic analysis: accession, requests and circulation ◦ ILL/EDD ◦ System-wide trends ReCAP Columbia University

3.  9.7 million books  CUL 4.0, NYPL 3.5, PUL 2.2  5 Modules complete  2 planned for construction: Module 8 & 9 have broken ground, expected to open June 2013  CUL manages transfers with quotasquotas ReCAP Columbia University  Tours conducted once or twice each year

4.  CUL and ReCAP computer systems do not dynamically interact  CUL systems are designed to keep in sync with ReCAP systems  Patrons place requests via CLIO; different levels of request permissions are in place for staff in order to manage special collection  On such a large scale and in context of complex systems problems may ensue… ReCAP Columbia University

5. ReCAP Columbia University  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 mis-keyed  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)

6. ReCAP Columbia University glx circ 0012345 ColumbiaReCAP

7. Columbia University off,glx circ CU12345 CU [shelf#] ColumbiaReCAP How Accession Works (Part 4) …skipping from first to last step

8.  Burke Library has both general and special collections at ReCAP  Circulating and non-circulating collections  Items in poor physical condition do not circulate  Mainly print collection; some archives – and more going out  Lots of information and instructions can be found on the ReCAP and Burke Library websiteReCAP and Burke Library website ReCAP Columbia University

9.  CU : Columbia Unrestricted deliver to all locations and circulate  CR : Columbia Restricted deliver to all locations but do not circulate  UT : Burke special collections deliver only to Burke Circulation and do not circulate ReCAP Columbia University

10. How CUL demarcates collections  off,uts : Union Stacks (circ)  off,utn : Union Stacks (noncirc)  off,utp : Pamphlet Collection (noncirc)  off,utmrl : Missionary Research Library (noncirc)  off,uta : Burke/UTS Archives (noncirc) ReCAP Columbia University

11.  Four basic categories of data ◦ Accessions ◦ Requests ◦ Delivery ◦ Circulation  Detailed information can be found at the ReCAP Data Center website ReCAP Data Center website  Website now includes introductory presentations for all basic categories AND analysis ReCAP Columbia University

12.  TOTAL : 168,380 / 15,777 (Request Rate 1.62%)  off,uta : 425 / 136 (13.40%)  off,utmrl : 27,200 / 2,127 (1.33%)  off,utn : 47,085 / 3,231 (1.09%)  off,utp : 17,565 / 603 (0.73%)  off,uts : 76,105 / 9,680 (2.24%) ReCAP Columbia University

13.  View of Burke Library accessions by fiscal year  Offsite transfer projects ran from 2005-2008  Detailed information on project may be found on Burke/ReCAP websiteBurke/ReCAP website  Accessions since 2008 have mainly involved: ◦ pamphlet cataloging via SCMC (Cataloger Rick Block supervised library school interns) ◦ ad hoc problem resolution (Zack Lane) ◦ new acquisitions direct to ReCAP ReCAP Columbia University

14. ReCAP Columbia University

15. ReCAP Columbia University

16. ReCAP Columbia University  Pie chart visualizes accessions according to collection  The largest collection is the Union Stacks circulating material  Entire post-1860 MRL collection was transferred  Several thousand pamphlets await cataloging and transfer  Space created from transfer allowed LC Stacks to expand over S4/S5 and Periodicals over S1/S2

17. ReCAP Columbia University

18. ReCAP Columbia University  Requests begin immediately after transfer  Monthly request volumes in phase with academic calendar  Data for lower-use collections is noisy  Staff processing requests are included (mainly FY07-FY08)

19. ReCAP Columbia University

20. ReCAP Columbia University

21. ReCAP Columbia University

22. ReCAP Columbia University

23. ReCAP Columbia University

24. ReCAP Columbia University

25. ReCAP Columbia University

26. ReCAP Columbia University  Items physically delivered to Burke Library circulation desk  Majority are Burke owned collections, followed by Butler  Requests for collections outpace deliveries Burke circulation

27. ReCAP Columbia University

28. ReCAP Columbia University

29. ReCAP Columbia University

30. ReCAP Columbia University  Request rate is a measure of collection usage  It is the percentage of ReCAP collections requested during a twelve-month period  Provides staff one way to gauge overall use of offsite collections  Request rate is one factor used to structure ReCAP facility staffing model  Patron access to offsite collections is excellent: dynamic with few failures  Measured two ways: ◦ Annual ◦ Lifespan

31. ReCAP Columbia University

32. ReCAP Columbia University  Request rate is higher for Western languages and Tibetan than CJK  Accession/Request (Request rate) ◦ English : 128,101 / 13,309 (1.80%) ◦ German : 21,431 / 935 (0.74%) ◦ French : 9,776 / 791 (1.39%) ◦ Everything Else : 3,899 / 252 (1.16%) ◦ Latin : 2,045 / 273 (2.32%) ◦ Dutch : 1,637 / 59 (0.63%) ◦ Italian : 1,491 / 158 (2.00%)

33. ReCAP Columbia University

34.  More information about data sets can be found on the ReCAP Data Center websiteReCAP Data Center website  Primary data categories include: accession, retrieval, delivery and circulation  Tailored data sets and analysis will be provided to staff via the ReCAP Coordinator  Please see the main ReCAP website for general information about CUL procedures and systemsReCAP website ReCAP Columbia University