1. Music Score Processing GREATER EFFICIENCY THROUGH ANALYSIS CHUCK PETERS WILLIAM & GAYLE COOK MUSIC LIBRARY INDIANA UNIVERSITY 1

2. 2

3. Cook Music Library: Music scores (Number of titles)  Cataloged scores, normal circulation Full scores68,058 Miniature scores 6,10574,163  Collected works 7,553  Performing Ensembles Division 4,437  Cataloged scores: Total number of titles86,153  Uncataloged scores35,577  All scores in the library: Total number of titles 121,730 (155,000+ vols.) 3

4. Cook Music Library (Before): Technical Services staff  4 Librarians: Collection Development Librarian Print materials cataloger (books and scores) Sound recordings cataloger Latin American Music Center materials cataloger (all formats)  2.5 Support staff catalogers Head of Music Library Acquisitions Print materials cataloger (books and scores) Sound recordings cataloger  8 student employees 2 Acquisitions assistants Book copy cataloger 2 score copy catalogers Sound recordings cataloger (IU performances) Bindery preparation assistant Undergraduate honors assistant 4

5. The analysis included all processes involving music scores: Firm – Approval – Standing orders Downloading copy and placing the order Initial receipt and processing Workflow routing: Fast Cat or Backlog (Frontlog) Cataloging: copy cataloging and original Final processing: bindery, label, vault, reserves, etc. 5

6. The Frontlog part of the analysis FAST CAT PROCESS WORKING AS IT SHOULD HOWEVER, FRONTLOG STILL GROWING! 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. Frontlog analysis  What causes the Frontlog?  Calculating the annual cost of the Frontlog  Measuring the process  Arrival Rates  Processing Capabilities  Workflow improvements  Eliminating non-value-added activity Multiple searches Unnecessary packaging for shelving in the Frontlog  Switching from a “push” to a “pull” system 9

10. What has caused the Frontlog? Literature reviews  Materials: too much ordered; too many gifts  Staff: low staffing levels  Technology: we can order faster but not necessarily catalog faster  Administrative priorities (Decrees from on high)  Cataloging: obligations to professional standards; changes in cataloging rules; cataloging music is more complex than books 10

11. What has caused the Frontlog? From our observations: 1. The decision to have a Frontlog; implemented without a time limit 2. Acquisitions a. Acquisitions budget greater than cataloging budget b. Difficult to manage proactively and in detail c. Easy to become disconnected from the cataloging process, resulting in unbalanced pushing on the system 3. Gifts: unpredictable 11 Acquisitions Cataloging process inefficiencies Not enough catalogers

12. What has caused the Frontlog? From our observations: 4. We must maintain professional cataloging standards 5. Workflow inefficiencies within Tech Services a. Acquisitions arrival rate unknown (see above) b. Processing capability unknown c. Redundant work being performed 6. Resource shortages within Tech Services 12 Acquisitions Cataloging process inefficiencies Not enough catalogers

13. Metrics needed for consistent performance  Key metrics that should be available at any time: How many items can Acquisitions process in [time period]? Number of titles ordered / received / outstanding / gifts Firm; Approval; Standing orders How many items can be cataloged in [time period]? How many items cataloged vs shelved in the Frontlog? Staffing: academic calendar, reserves, FY deadlines, etc.; training to multiple tasks 13

14. Understanding the inputs: Arrival rates and Order sizes 14 Fits Geometric Distributions (Consistent with queuing theory) Approvals and Firms follow normal distribution Standing follows lognormal distribution after filtering out single-item orders

15. Gathering the raw data: Calculating Acquisitions functions  Search OCLC for copy  Place orders  Receive orders Invoice check-in process Materials processing: Fast Cat or Frontlog Property stamp Barcode Tattle tape Scores and parts in envelopes  Process gift donations 15

16. Gathering the raw data: Calculating Cataloging functions  Search OCLC for copy  Verify bibliographic record  Authority records: export existing or create original  Create bindery instructions  Check student work Individual functions were timed Percentages were calculated for time spent on various functions A flowchart was mapped: 16

17. Workflow Improvement: Mapping the Process 17 Before:After:

18. Workflow Improvement: Revision 18 Revising the process map: Consolidated redundant steps Removed unnecessary steps Pooled resources

19. What changed?  Student job descriptions were combined  Knowledgeable staff moved to the beginning of the receiving process (keeping materials from being added to the Frontlog)  Acquisitions invoice process became more automated, eliminating the need to create brief bibliographic records  Cataloging copy: full level or above accepted  Duplicate searches were removed from the process  Unnecessary authority records no longer created  Duplicate checking of work was eliminated  Performing Ensembles Librarian trained in copy cataloging 19

20. Improved numbers DLC/PCC240 I-Level3437 No record196 Below I-level630 Total4503 20

21. Workflow Improvement: Implications We need to:  Revisit professional standards  Rewrite job descriptions Temporary (student hourly) positions Support staff  Retrain  Implement data collection and analysis  Maintain an integrated workflow Acquisitions—Cataloging—Processing and bindery 21