ReCAP Update:Tech Services Librarians

Zack LaneReCAP CoordinatorColumbia University

4/29/2010

Retrieval by Publication Date of off,glx

0

500

1000

1500

2000

25001850

1859

1868

1877

1886

1895

1904

1913

1922

1931

1940

1949

1958

1967

1976

1985

1994

2003

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 staff

• 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)

Accession: Step 1

glxcirc

0012345

Columbia ReCAP

Accession: Step 4

off,glxcirc

CU12345

CU12345CU

[shelf#]

Columbia ReCAP

Item Status at ReCAP

In and At Rest

Out on Retrieval

REFILE

PWI/PWD

NOT ON FILE

Queries to LAS (ReCAP database)

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/las.html

Access Services Committee

• EDD citation problems– https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/

alerts.html#pagination• High-volume requests

– https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/alerts.html#20limit

• EDD privileges restricted to only current borrowers

• Email Notification– https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/

alerts.html#email

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: recap@libraries.cul.columbia.edu

Change to: AskUS (Reference)

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)

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/reports.html

Interns/GA

• Music Library Project: Feb-Aug. 2009, resolve leftover barcodes

• 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

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/internga.html

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

CUL Retrieval Rate

0.83%

1.61%

1.89%

1.94%

2.23%2.15%

2.02%2.00%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

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

Retrieval Rate by Publication Date: 1850-2008

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

1850

1854

1858

1862

1866

1870

1874

1878

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

Request by Language

• 326,591 total requests 2002-2009

• 203 different languages requested

• English accounts for 63.27% of all requests

• Top 10 languages account for 93.53% of all requests

Language Count Percent

eng 206634 63.27%

jpn 16955 5.19%

fre 16295 4.99%

chi 16174 4.95%

ger 15694 4.81%

spa 9288 2.84%

ita 7918 2.42%

rus 7799 2.39%

none 5269 1.61%

kor 3426 1.05%

ara 2237 0.68%

n/a 1621 0.50%

heb 1215 0.37%

hin 1088 0.33%

per 1069 0.33%

tur 1034 0.32%

por 1030 0.32%

lat 995 0.30%

urd 961 0.29%

pol 884 0.27%

Retrieval Rate by Pub Date/Language

Retrieval Rate by Publication Date and Language

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

spa

rus

por

pol

ita

hin

ger

fre

eng

ara

Time of UseRequest Volume by HourFY02-FY09 (total: 289,140)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Day of UseRequest Volume by Weekday

FY02-FY09 (total: 289,140)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Request Failures

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/reqfail.html

Zack Takes Questions