2CUL TSI Monograph Receiving Working Group
Summarize staffing and expertise at Columbia and Cornell, including a comparison of current job assignments.
Investigation: Members of the Working Group shared respective inventories of receiving staff and expertise and discussed details of job assignments during phone discussions.
Columbia has 8 FTE divided into two units within Monographs Acquisitions Services (MAS): the Book in Hand unit (BIH) processes approvals and the Order & Receiving Unit (OAR) processes firm orders. One FTE in OAR is assigned 35% cataloging duties. Cornell has 12 FTE that are cross-trained to receive and input (fastcat) approval and firm order material, and are dispersed throughout Acquisitions and Automated Technical Services (AATS). Both Columbia and Cornell's receiving staff have diverse language skills and expertise which allow them to handle a wide range of approval material for review, receive firm orders, and fastcat upon receipt. An overarching difference between the two receiving departments is the inclusion of Chinese-Japanese-Korean-Tibetan (CJKT) material in AATS at Cornell, and the separate technical services department for CJK at Columbia located at C.V. Starr East Asian Library. A comparison of current job assignments indicates similar tasks and responsibilities at both institutions with two main differences: Cornell's cross-training of staff to fastcat upon receipt and Columbia's use of shelf-ready for approval material.
Summarize reporting and decision-making structures at Columbia and Cornell.
Investigation: Members of the Working Group shared respective organizational charts and discussed details of reporting and decision-making structures during phone discussions.
Monographs Processing Services (MPS) has a Divisional Director that includes a copy cataloging department which consists of three individual units, and a monographs acquisitions department (MAS) with two individual units. Policy and procedural decisions affecting MAS are discussed within the department in consultation with the Order Unit Librarian and brought to the larger division as information sharing. Policy and procedural decisions affecting the MPS Division are discussed and agreed up in consultation with the Division Director and all unit Librarians. Policy and procedural decisions affecting other divisions and departmental libraries are discussed and agreed upon in appropriate meetings with representatives from other divisions and departmental libraries.
Acquisitions and Automated Technical Services (AATS) is directed by Boaz Nadav-Manes, and consists of Copy Cataloging/Inputting, Ordering and Gifts, Receiving and Documents, and Batch Processing and Metadata Management. Procedural decisions are made by the administrative supervisor or coordinator of that unit in consultation with the director of AATS. Policy decisions are made by the director of AATS who consults with one or all of the appropriate unit supervisors or coordinators as needed.
Columbia and Cornell have similar reporting and decision-making structures. At Columbia, MAS is a department with two individual units (BIH and OAR), an OAR Unit Librarian, and a department head, whereas Cornell's AATS is divided into individual Units with supervisors or coordinators.
Summarize significant similarities and differences between policies, practices, and workflows in the Receiving departments at Columbia and Cornell.
Investigation: Members of the Working Group shared and posted respective documentation on policies, practices and workflows on Basecamp and the 2CUL wiki, and discussed details during phone discussions.
Please see "Inventory of All Policies, Practices and Workflows" and "Significant Similarities and Differences."
Many of the policies, practices and workflows are mirrored at the two institutions. Both Columbia and Cornell receive firm order and approval material; prepare approval material for selector review; utilize vendor records for approval material; utilize EDI for ordering and invoicing; create and enter invoices into Voyager for payment; return defective or incorrectly invoiced approval and firm order material to vendors; and handle special items. While examining the Inventory, it became evident to the members of the group that a considerable amount of work is processed in the respective receiving departments at each University and managed by very few supervisors.
Even though the two institutions do similar kinds of work in comparable fashion, there are significant differences in receiving workflows that are unique to each University. As was mentioned in the summary of staffing and expertise at the beginning of this report, Cornell has several workflows established for fastcating material upon receipt; Columbia has 1 FTE in the OAR unit with 35% of their responsibilities devoted to cataloging. There are also differences in what each receiving department handles. Columbia receives a significant number of DVDs and serial back issues, whereas Cornell handles government documents and receives and checks-in current serials. Librarians in MAS approve invoices in Voyager before routing on for processing in the acquisitions accounting department, whereas Cornell's unit supervisors route pending invoices to their respective accounting department for approval in Voyager.
Summarize dependencies and limitations inherent in working with other functional units at Columbia and Cornell.
Investigation: Members of the Working Group shared and posted respective documentation on dependencies on Basecamp and the 2CUL wiki and discussed details during phone discussions.
Please see attached document entitled "Dependencies and Limitations."
Columbia and Cornell's receiving departments experience the same types of dependencies and limitations in day-to-day operations. Both departments are dependent on the timely review and selection of approval material by selectors in order to facilitate payment of invoices and cataloging of material. Establishing EDI connections with vendors occurs in IT departments outside of the receiving units (LITO for Columbia and Batch Processing for Cornell). The loading of bibliographic records for approval material at Columbia also occurs in LITO and the Book in Hand unit must wait until the records load before it can prepare material for review. Cornell is reliant on their accounting department to approve pending invoices in Voyager. The processing of invoices for approval material is limited by internal accounting constraints at Columbia.
Summarize available baseline productivity numbers in the receiving departments at Columbia and Cornell.
Investigation: Members of the Working Group retrieved and posted available baseline productivity numbers on the 2CUL wiki and discussed details during phone discussions.
Please see attached spreadsheets reflecting receipt of approval and firm order material at Columbia, Cornell, and C.V. Starr East Asian Library for fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
The productivity numbers retrieved by Columbia, Cornell and Starr East Asian at Columbia require a brief explanation. Cornell's numbers include CJKT material whereas Columbia's do not. Columbia's CJKT receipts are reflected in the Starr East Asian statistics and are combined with the non-CJKT receipts and compared to Cornell's numbers in the spreadsheet labeled "Combined Comparison with Starr." Cornell's numbers include government document receipts and Columbia's include serial back issues, but do not include DVD receipts per the agreed upon parameters of this study.
An overall view of the productivity numbers for both institutions indicates a sizable gap in the area of approval receipts. Without CJKT material included, Columbia receives, on average, twice the number of approval books as Cornell. Approval receipts for both institutions grew at a modest level between 2010 and 2012. Without CJKT numbers included, Cornell is receiving slightly more the area of firm orders than Columbia. However, with Starr East Asian's numbers factored in, the average for Columbia plus the CJKT receipts over the three year span is 40,663; Cornell's average over the same timeframe is 24,482. The combined (approvals + firm orders) comparisons with and without Starr's CJKT numbers reflect the same general tendency of higher receipts at Columbia than at Cornell.
Recommendations regarding a work plan and critical issues to explore in Phase 2 of the group's assignment.
- In Phase 2, it would be advantageous to meet with the other working groups mentioned in the charge (Ordering, Copy Cataloging, Batch Processing) to see where