BTECH minutes - 7/2/03

[Judith Weeks <jweeks@library.berkeley.edu>]

BERKELEY TECHNICAL SERVICES DISCUSSION GROUP MEETING MINUTES

Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Recorder: Jessica Lemieux
9:00 AM-11:00 AM
303 Doe Library

Announcements:

Judith Weeks reminded everyone that even though Library Systems has 
upgraded the GLADIS ports that are available, it is still necessary to log 
out of GLADIS before exiting the program.  By hitting SF16, you log 
yourself out of your session and free the port to someone else to use.  If 
you simply exit the program, the port will still be tied to your session 
and no one else will be able to use it.

Jane Kelley wanted to draw everyone's attention to the email postings sent 
today by Chancellor Berdahl. They are about the budget and not good news, 
so it's important to keep informed.  She also reminded everyone that she 
takes care of the TraceSer account.

Charis Takaro announced that next Wednesday (July 9) would be her last day 
before maternity leave.  She expects to return to work in November.

Agenda:

1. Binding Monographs after cataloging, follow up / Sheila Wekselbaum

Sheila began the discussion by saying that though it is not a great time to 
make a major change like this, it is important to discuss it.  The reason a 
discussion is important is that we should have a plan ready when it is 
possible to implement a change if needed.  For Technical Services, this 
change to binding after cataloging would be great.  It would help 
tremendously in tracing, because they could put notes in the record.  It 
would also help to catch duplicates earlier.  Sheila then suggested we go 
around the room and ask each person if their unit would be for or against 
this change, and make any suggestions regarding implementation.  Judith 
Weeks began by describing the special situation for BIOS.  BIOS has already 
arranged with Technical Services that all material be sent to them 
cataloged unbound.  If an item is to be bound, BIOS treats it as a regular 
bind; students generate a binding slip and put at charge in the record, and 
discharge is the responsibility of BIOS.

J. Kelley spoke for the Serials Department, and said they just need to know 
what the decision is, as this only affects them when they need to trace 
things. M. Meacham said he was completely in favor of this change because 
it would make tracing easier, and brought up the question of who is going 
to be responsible for putting the charge into the record.  As it stands 
now, he feels comfortable putting notes in the branch records, because he 
knows that someone will look at the record.  T. Perry-Houts spoke for 
Bindery Prep and expressed concern about items being charged out while they 
are going through the different processes. It was then suggested that PI 
notes could be used instead of a charge, but Sheila noted that this is 
problematic for public service.  Though it might be easier to charge 
materials to the bindery, the question of who will put the charge in is 
important.  Cataloging is done in OCLC, so it would not be a matter of a 
few more keystrokes for catalogers to put it in.  There is also no 
universal autocirc privilege, so Technical Services staff would have to be 
assigned accounts for each branch before they could be responsible for 
putting charges in and this does not seem feasible.

As we went around the room several things came up.  Some units said binding 
after cataloging would better catch duplicates, preventing them from being 
bound and wasting a bind.  Also, items that should not be bound in the 
first place might be caught and not sent for binding.  When asked if using 
the BIOS model would significantly increase the workload, most units 
responded that they thought not.  Another question that was raised was how 
much transit and processing time this change would add.  J. Weeks responded 
that it probably only adds a couple of days if you stay on top of your 
processing.  Most units felt they might be open to the idea of taking on 
the responsibility of binding their monographs.  This would of course need 
fuller discussion with a written flow chart and plan to see how this would 
be implemented.  Units would need to discuss this change with their selectors.

There was also some discussion of how this decision would change the 
labeling process.  Sheila does not want to label books twice. The first 
suggestion was not to label the Pams; to write the call number on the piece 
and place a SEND TO flag in them.  The book would then be sent to the 
branch for a binding decision, and if it did not need binding the branch 
would label it. This is problematic because it would require sorting by 
bind style.  Another suggestion was that since the labels are automatically 
produced by OCLC, Tech Services could send the labels with the piece, 
either by paper clipping it to the book, or using old label sheets as stock 
to make flags on which the labels could be stuck and peeled off 
easily.  This led to the suggestion of whether we could get piggyback 
labels like the piggyback barcodes.  Some people thought this would be a 
great idea to use this type of label if they exist and a great time saver 
as well.  They would eliminate duplicate labeling.  On the down side of 
using them they would be much more expensive and have possible conservation 
related side effects like the piggyback barcodes.  Sheila said she would 
look into this possibility.  Pam binds are the most problematic because if 
labeled in advance they would again need to be labeled to have the label on 
the outside cover of the pambind.

Round the room contributions then resumed.  C. Pierce spoke for EAL.  They 
do not currently send many things to Technical Services, though many times 
EAL material in English gets sent for binding before they see it.  EAL 
would prefer to continue binding before cataloging, or else using some sort 
of piggyback label (except on brittle books).  V. Moon noted that during 
the last budget crunch the binding budget was hit pretty hard, and 
selectors decided to send unbound new books to NRLF because they did not 
want unbound books in the compact shelving.  This led to misconceptions on 
the part of patrons as to why material goes to storage.  Binding after 
cataloging would give the branches much more control over their binding 
budget, but MAIN needs to consider the implications of this too.  R. Wilson 
then responded that BIOS has had unbounds in compact shelving for over five 
years without any problems, and added that when things get mangled by the 
shelving, it is regardless of whether they are bound or unbound. Sheila 
concluded the discussion by saying that we will continue doing things the 
way they are now, but she will report back after seeing what priorities are.

2. ON ORDER, IN PROCESS, Q-LEVEL record lists

In May and November each year, Systems Office produces lists of Q-level 
records and in process and on order records that are older than two 
years.  These lists need to be looked at, examining each record to see what 
the problem is, and playing the detective.  Sometimes materials did get 
cataloged but the records were not merged.  One clue to this sort of 
problem is having two barcodes in the book (check for piggybacks in the 
front). To help prevent future occurrences, books should always be well 
marked, since anything not clearly marked for a branch will be assumed for 
MAIN.  Another type of problem is that books get lost.  These will need to 
be investigated and referred to the selector.

Jane Kelley noted that the pre-online versions of these lists weren't 
distributed because some branch staff did not have the authority to fix the 
records or the training.  These are now all distributed the owning unit and 
are also available archived online. Each time a new list is created it 
supersedes the old because they are cumulative lists.  The older lists are 
archived, but the most recent lists are complete.  If you notice a pattern, 
please report back.  If you are not authorized to collapse records or make 
other needed records changes, send an email to MonMaint or SerMaint, as 
appropriate.

Selectors are not necessarily aware of these lists, but they do have a 
public service impact. There are several things that can be done to make 
patrons aware that materials are not on the shelf.  We can withdraw the 
item and delete materials that are over seven years old.  It was also 
pointed out that since Technical Services is developing larger backlogs, it 
might be time to re-evaluate the length of time required to get on these 
lists from older than 2 years to 3?  Currently, the system logs an item to 
the list if no PO is found and the add ID isn't GPP (since we can't know 
how old it is, the system logs it), or if the PO is found and the order 
file has a received date older than two years. R. Wilson pointed out that 
looking at the Q-level records can be useful in finding out what your staff 
doesn't understand.  Some Q-Level records are bad "on the fly" records 
created at a Circulation Desk.  They could also be serials that don't link 
or Monograph records that couldn't be found by the system.  There was a 
question of whether Q-level records could be deleted automatically like 
N-levels when there are no barcodes attached to the record, and Charis said 
she would try to look into it.  One frequent problem with Q-levels is that 
a dumb barcode gets placed on the item and gets covered up when the 
material goes to the bindery.  When Technical Services receives the item, 
they put a new one in and create the higher level record, so the old 
Q-level does not get overlaid.  Also, Jane Kelley  noted that she puts PI 
notes in the record if  something is in a backlog, so that it's easier to 
deal with the next time a list is produced.  One last common problem that 
comes up on these lists is when there is an on order record and an f-level 
record exist for the same item, but never got merged.  In this case, it 
might be 2 books, and it is necessary to check the shelf before overlaying 
the records.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 AM.