...
The following report is a summary of the Phase I 2CUL CCWG findings, detailed inventories and/or description of policies, procedures and workflows can be found in Columbia and Cornell 2CUL copy cataloging group comprehensive reports:
Wiki Markup
2CUL Cornell copy cataloging group report\]
I. Summary of staffing and expertise at the two CULs, including a comparison of current job assignmentsunmigrated-wiki-markup
While the overall numbers of staff involved in copy cataloging activities at Columbia and Cornell are comparable \[link to org. charts\] it is not easy to assess staffing levels in terms of FTE because Columbia's copy cataloging operations are more centralized than Cornell's. At Cornell there are 35 staff members performing inputting and fastcatting and 4 copy catalogers, at Columbia there are 25 copy catalogers. There is a difference in major responsibilities as well. At Columbia copy catalogers are support staff performing mainly cataloging activities: inputting minimal level records, backlogging, performing copy and sometimes original cataloging. At Cornell these tasks are more aligned with position titles: copy cataloger and inputter/fastcatter. The main difference in staff distribution is that at Columbia most staff perform only cataloging related duties while at Cornell many of the fastcatters and inputters have other Technical Services related responsibilities (e.g. receiving, ordering, physical processing, database maintenance, etc.)comparable (seeColumbia, Starr East Asian, and Cornell org. charts) it is not easy to assess staffing levels in terms of FTE because Columbia's copy cataloging operations are more centralized than Cornell's. At Cornell there are 35 staff members performing inputting and fastcatting and 4 copy catalogers, at Columbia there are 25 copy catalogers. There is a difference in major responsibilities as well. At Columbia copy catalogers are support staff performing mainly cataloging activities: inputting minimal level records, backlogging, performing copy and sometimes original cataloging. At Cornell these tasks are more aligned with position titles: copy cataloger and inputter/fastcatter. The main difference in staff distribution is that at Columbia most staff perform only cataloging related duties while at Cornell many of the fastcatters and inputters have other Technical Services related responsibilities (e.g. receiving, ordering, physical processing, database maintenance, etc.)
Cornell cataloging staff have more expertise in a variety of languages especially non-Roman script languages (see Cornell language chart). The expectation at both institutions is that copy catalogers will catalog in languages they're not proficient in. Also in general Cornell cataloging staff unlike Columbia's have expertise in other areas of Technical Services, e.g. some Cornell cataloging staff include various aspects of ordering (including e-book ordering) and receiving, batch processing, metadata management and other Technical Services related Wiki Markup
Some Cornell copy cataloging staff are also responsible for hiring, managing and supervising student workers which is done at Columbia mostly by professional librarians.
...
II. Summary of reporting and decision-making structures related to copy cataloging activities at the two CULsunmigrated-wiki-markup
Direct reporting structures at both institutions are well represented by the Technical Services organizational charts \[link\].charts (seeColumbia, Starr East Asian, and Cornell org. charts)
Staff generally report to a direct supervisor, who in turn reports to a director of a division or department. At both institutions there are cross departmental/divisional meetings and committees charged with deciding cataloging policies and new procedures as well as creation and changes in local cataloging documentation.
...
In general, copy cataloging workflows at Columbia are designed and perfected over the years to avoid double handling of materials. The following are interdependencies rather than limitations in processing new materials: all materials (with an exception of East Asian) are received through either MAS (Monographs Acquisitions Services) or CERM (Continuing & Electronic Resources Management Division) and routed for copy cataloging to MPS. Some materials (e.g. Avery, serials, non-book formats, music) are routed directly to OSMC for copy/original cataloging. Rush materials and some other categories are routed from MPS to OSMC for original cataloging when needed. Bibliographic record loads are handled mostly by the Libraries Information Technology Office (LITO) and MPS supervisors are notified and copied with reports. Cataloging efficiencies at Columbia are sometimes inhibited by demands for service exceptions.unmigrated-wiki-markup
Materials at Cornell are brought to copy cataloging by inputters/fastcatters. Excluding belle lettres which are handled by copy catalogers, Excluding belle lettres which are handled by copy catalogers, inputters/fastcatters route Items lacking subject headings, to Physical Processing whose staff places them in the storage presses and the original catalogers may do full or class-on-receipt cataloging; copy catalogers as well do class-on-receipt \[insert Cornell bookflow chart\]. All formats with copy are handled by copy catalogers. Rush cataloging goes to a prominent shelf for both original and copy catalogers to retrieve. The inputters in the Copy Cataloging and Inputting Unit as well as other Acquisitions and Batch Processing staff do bulk record loads. The level of cross-training makes units quite interdependent and enables team (Cornell book workflow chart). All formats with copy are handled by copy catalogers. Rush cataloging goes to a prominent shelf for both original and copy catalogers to retrieve. The inputters in the Copy Cataloging and Inputting Unit as well as other Acquisitions and Batch Processing staff do bulk record loads. The level of cross-training makes units quite interdependent and enables team work.
While the functions performed in copy cataloging are essentially the same, both institutions have distinct workflows to achieve effective processing. At Columbia the interdependencies with other units and departments are based on acquisitions to cataloging workflows and reflect more centralized organizational structure. At Cornell copy cataloging activities are more dispersed throughout Cataloging, Acquisitions, Database Quality and Physical Processing units and more aligned with the functions of these units/departments.
...
- Attached spreadsheets for Columbia cataloging statistics (2010-2013):
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
OverallColumbia overall copy and original statistics \[link\] |
Wiki Markup By language \[link\]
Wiki Markup By format \[link\] \\- Attached spreadsheets for Cornell cataloging statistics (2010-2013):
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
OverallCornell overall copy and original statistics \[link\] |
Wiki Markup By language \[link\]
Wiki Markup By format \[link\] \\
Generally, copy cataloging statistics at both institutions reflect the number of materials received in a certain period of time. The combined copy cataloging numbers at Columbia for MPS, OSMC and EAL are about 100,000 a year (not counting backlogged materials in Precat and Offprecat). At Cornell the fastcat and non-fastcat categories comprise approximately 60,000 titles a year.
...