SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES IN ORDER UNITS AT COLUMBIA & CORNELL
1) Selectors at Columbia are more involved in the ordering process, i.e., assigning vendor, requesting claims, cancellations, and re-assignment of vendors to orders, than are selectors at Cornell.
2) Columbia and Cornell both use the Pre-Order Online Form (POOF), however in ways unique to their own institutions.
3) Cornell uses WorldCat Selection; Columbia does not. WCS and an in-house created matrix is one of Cornell’s main discovery and ordering tools and is run as a chron job each night. Its use has created workflows and procedures unique to Cornell. WorldCat Select uses an automated method for adding bibliographic records to Voyager and creating purchase orders.
4) Columbia uses YBP’s GOBI as main discovery and ordering tool for domestic and UK firm orders. This allows the automated loading of records and appending of purchase orders in Voyager (similar to the way WCS works?). Records and purchase orders for Columbia’s domestic & UK orders are automatically loaded into Voyager overnight via GOBI.
5) Cornell has a policy of handling all firm orders within “48 hours” regardless of priority, handling all rush, reserve and patron requests as quickly as possible. Columbia processes Priority 1 orders first – course reserves, patron requests, and regular RUSH.
6) Columbia and Cornell use many of the same vendors for placing firm orders. A notable exception is that Cornell uses Coutts to order materials published in the UK. Columbia orders UK-published materials from YBP.
7) Cornell’s ordering supervisors or experienced staff review each day’s purchase orders before they are approved in Voyager. Columbia allows staff to approve purchase orders in Voyager and supervisors review before they are sent out via email, paper or EDI.
8) Cornell has multiple vendor records for many vendors in Voyager. As a result of a recent internal audit, Columbia has deleted duplicate vendors and reduced the number of vendor records in Voyager.
9) Cornell monograph ordering staff rarely handle serial back issue requests in their firm order department. Columbia monograph staff routinely handle them.
10) Other than serial back issues, both institutions order material similar in format.
11) At Columbia, ordering supervisors are responsible for procurement card purchases. At Cornell, several staff members have procurement cards and handle all transactions involving the pcards themselves.
12) Columbia and Cornell both utilize email aliases as a means to ingest orders. Cornell uses one group mailbox so that staff responsible for a particular order can be easily identified.
13) Columbia and Cornell both have difficulties staying current with claims and cancellations.
14) Both Columbia and Cornell are receiving fewer firm orders from selectors than in the past.
15) Cornell uses EDI for ordering and invoicing with more vendors than does Columbia.
16) Columbia and Cornell both utilize drop-off boxes for catalogs or printouts of order requests.
17) Columbia still receives paper slips from Aux Amateurs and Coutts.
18) Cornell has discontinued their standing orders and Columbia still has a number of print standing orders. Difference influences how each order unit conducts its de-duplication search.
19) At Cornell, CJK material is handled in the main technical services division. At Columbia, technical services processing for CJKT language materials is handled in a separate library.
20) Both institutions use Access queries to gather information about the acquisitions process, though Cornell uses select queries to a larger extent than does Columbia.
21) For procurement card purchases, Columbia’s accounting office requires more documentation and verification than does Cornell’s (scanned receipts, chart strings, etc.)
22) Cornell has a simpler arrangement with their Amazon corporate account than Columbia does: Columbia pays $3.99 for each order. At both institutions, staff have to get into the Amazon site and create a separate invoice for each order.