Printer-Friendly

Cataloging & Metadata Services Redesign
A Mid-Year Assessment
Archival documentation related to the year 2000 Catalog Department redesign

Philip Schreur
Stanford University
7/3/2000

In the summer of 1999, I began the restructuring of the Cataloging & Metadata Services. Staff reductions, additional work from the redesign of Technical Services, and the need to process bulk purchases forced us to re-evaluate our current paradigm. Stanford's aggressive posture in the acquisition of digital resources needed to be incorporated into our strategy as well.

The assumptions made at the beginning of the planning process have proved to be accurate. The Library's budget remains closely controlled and the collection's budget shielded. High level demand for current resources reconfirms our commitment to national, cooperative initiatives and freedom from backlogs. Our acquisition of electronic resources continues to soar and the demand for coordinated access to free electronic resources continues to grow. SUL/AIR has investigated the purchase of a tool for storing and managing digital resources with various metadata schemes being the key to retrieval. Access to and remote storage of bulk purchases makes their processing unavoidable.

One key element we have created during the implementation process is what we call our "Level 3" cataloging (based on the cataloging record's encoding level). These records must meet the demands of automated copy matching (Marcadia) and provide both classification and some sort of subject access (for the most part, keyword). This new type of record, together with the philosophy that new material takes precedence over old (as per discussions with the Collections side of the organization) has determined our flow. It should be remembered that at any time a selector may override the typical workflow and request immediate, full level access to any item they have acquired.

In general, any new item received that is over 5 years old and has no copy is sent directly to the Classification Unit (paraprofessional) for Level 3 cataloging unless a selector has determined otherwise. Material younger than 5 years is grouped by subject and reviewed by the original catalogers for original cataloging. In this way, we can concentrate our most powerful access on those materials both in high demand and of most importance to the collections of SUL. Material without copy and not selected for original cataloging, goes to the Classification unit for classification and is then sent to the shelves to age for copy. Records for these materials will be sent to Marcadia periodically for automated copy matching and overlay. If no match is found after two years, the small percentage of remaining material will be upgraded to Level 3 cataloging and will stay at this level in the system unless the University supplies increased funds for the upgrading of access. In the processing of a bulk acquisition, expense related issues, such as preservation, are negotiated with selectors before any processing begins. Because of their age, most material received in a bulk purchase that has no copy, will receive Level 3 cataloging.

The most gratifying element of the redesign process has been the near elimination of processing backlogs. The Classification Unit has a working backlog of only 2 weeks. As the original catalogers choose only what they can handle in a bimonthly processing cycle, no backlogs develop at that end as well. It has been a pleasure watching the professional staff grow as we place more and more confidence in their judgment as professionals and encourage their growth in their subject areas or interests. In the statistical year 98/99, our production of original standard cataloging vs. BIBCO was 69% to 31%, with 80% of the BIBCO production being full and 20% core. In reviewing our last four months of production as a good indicator of the new processing paradigm, some surprising changes have taken place. Only 40% of our original cataloging production is standard and 60% is BIBCO and of the BIBCO production, only 56% is full and 44% is core. Although we have encouraged the use of the BIBCO standard as a default, we have allowed each individual cataloger to choose standard vs. BIBCO, and full vs. core. Production this year has been unstable as we made the difficult transition between workflows. However, production for the last quarter has nearly matched a typical quarter from the previous year (90%) even with reduced FTE and gives every indication of continuing to grow.

Internally, we have added a number of tracking devises to make sure we can locate any item as it moves through the Department. Using these checks, we can also monitor the flow to make sure material isn't pooling anywhere in the new model.

There are a few major areas yet to be developed in our overall planning process.

• First, we need the ability to overlay records with perfect-match copy delivered by Marcadia without any sort of human review. We already have the technical capability to do this, but need to refine our matching criteria to be assured that what is delivered as matching copy is in actuality matching copy 100% of the time (or as close to this number as we will accept).
• We will need to work on making our NACO catalogers independent in series as well as names and move them off review for BIBCO core cataloging.
• We have much to consider as well in the processing of bulk acquisitions, that is, large, unexpected gifts or purchases. There is a clear need for us to develop this capacity, but the irregular yet dramatic effect this has on our workflow is difficult to absorb.
• We reallocated department funds to staff our metadata unit and expect to go into production this summer. The new digital storage middleware Stanford has purchased gives us a focal point on which to develop our policies.
• Last, we need to develop an overarching policy on authority control taking into account our automated authority processing, copy cataloging policies, coordinate library' standards in a Union catalog, and NACO production.

The past 8 months of redesign have given us a strong yet flexible infrastructure for rapidly responding to changes in workflow and Library direction. Our primary goal, however, must be to embrace evolution as our everyday process and not merely as a means to achieve a fixed goal.

Last modified: June 22, 2005