1. RBML and ReCAP: Summary of Progress Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator 4/12/2010

2. Outline Review of ReCAP operations –Physical plant –Systems Current projects with Lea Osborne Data –What there is to look at –Basic analysis –Other projects

3. ReCAP Facility

4. ReCAP is a modular facility

5. ReCAP Summary 5 modules complete, housing almost 8 million books CUL: 3.6, NYPL: 2.8, PU: 1.6 Module 8 begins construction FY13, completed FY15 (projected) http://recap.princeton.edu/ Quotas outline space use and staffing needsQuotas

6. ReCAP Systems CUL and ReCAP computer systems do not dynamically interact CUL systems are designed to keep in sync with ReCAP systems Requests placed through regular mechanisms or directly via ReCAP staffregular mechanisms

7. Processing (Staff involved: CUL) –Barcode attached to wrong volume (see 7a) Wrong bib record (bad recon) Smart barcode switch Mismatch of serial/set issues –Item prepared but never sent –Item with smart bc not found, not charged to missing –Item with smart bc found but not transferred, data not purged from record –Wrong customer code/CLIO location match (e.g. CM barcode/off,glx location) –Item transferred to ReCAP with barcode not in Voyager (“Orphan Offsite Barcode”) Barcode miskeyed Barcode not entered Transfer (Staff involved: CUL/Clancy-Cullen/ReCAP) –CLIO displays onsite location when in process for transfer –Onsite staging may not be accessible to patron –Delay in accessioning (normal timing is 2-4 weeks after transfer) –Single vol of set isn’t accessioned (sometimes CLIO location flips, sometimes not) Accession (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Barcode not entered/deleted from Voyager –Barcode scans incorrectly –Accession report never received –CLIO location doesn’t change after accession (charged at time of accession?) Ex: BIBL# 3879176 –Barcode scanned under wrong customer code. Sol: Identify using Accessions data, sorting by customer code, barcode prefix and CLIO location Request (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP) –Request button doesn’t appear Misapplied off,xxx location. Problem during early stages of transfer; mostly eliminated by batch suppression. Short time delay between location flip and button appearance Presence of non-offsite Temp. Loc. during processing. Ex. BIBL# 3393111 (Lehman) –Error message displays when button clicked –Request fails unbeknownst to patron –Bad citation –Bad email address Maintenance (Staff involved: CUL) –Holdings record with RECAP LOAD in history is deleted and replaced with new holdings. Ex. BIBL# 6622249 –OPAC message discourages patron, e.g. “ON –ORDER /IN PROCESS” –MFHD/Item has “off,xxx” location but has no offsite barcode. [12/09, not yet systematically addressed] –CLIO locations changed from “off,xxx” to “xxx” Ex. BIBL#106440 Retrieval (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Book not filed “OUT” from ReCAP; ReCAP database thinks book is “IN” (Google Project specific?) Delivery (Staff involved: ReCAP/Bohrens/CUL) –S&R delivery delayed –S&R deliver to wrong library –ReCAP staff puts book in wrong delivery tote Circulation (Staff involved: CUL/Patron) –Barcode does not correspond to correct bib record/enum/chron –Book not charged to patron (who may not return) –Items languish in processing departments; charged or not charged –Claim returns with offsite locations Not returned At bindery Slow return to ReCAP –Temp Loc and Type not removed E.g. Reserve books. Solution: Request report of off,xxx locations with Temp Loc. Return (Staff involved: Patron/CUL) –Mis-shelved onsite at returning library –Mis-shelved onsite at owning library (after routing) –Book is not discharged –In transit status is not removed (Can batch file be run for all off,xxx location with In transit?) –Overdue/Lost—System Applied is returned. Discharged but Lost status not removed. Still requestable in CLIO; not resolved by weekly reconciliation. Refiling (Staff involved: ReCAP) –Books are slow to be reshelved ILL (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP) –Request does not go through normal mechanism, item may be requested twice resulting in failure notice –Book never returned from loan (How to track?) EDD –Articles isn’t scanned Condition/binding Copyright Not found Insufficient information –Patron can’t access files Pop up blocker Problem with browser Unfamiliarity with technology –ReCAP Problems Files removed from server –re-installation of scanner (9/21/09)

8. Accession: Step 1 glx circ 0012345 ColumbiaReCAP

9. Accession: Step 4 off,glx circ CU12345 CU [shelf#] ColumbiaReCAP

10. Standing Meetings Began October 2009 at Lea Osborne’s suggestion Weekly Addressed delivery locations, tracking and oversight

11. Outcomes Shipping & Receiving delivery point (CS) Implementation of Voyager Circulation Module Dynamic tracking mechanism: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/inside/ clio/statistics/offsite/ https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/inside/ clio/statistics/offsite/ Packing (preservation) documentation RBML/ReCAP website: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/rec ap/rbml.html https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/rec ap/rbml.html

12. RBML at ReCAP All RBML off-site collections must be requested via staff (mediated) Patrons may submit online form for staff requestonline form All collections non-circulating Includes both print material and archives Many requests are for staff processing

13. Terms: Customer CodeCustomer Code How ReCAP systems controls access Customer codes are two- or three-letter codes assigned to library collections Used to control access permissionsaccess permissions Critical to the ongoing transfer, management and access to off-site collections Customer codes represent one of three things: 1) Delivery location, 2) Collection or 3) Delivery location and Collection.

14. RBML Customer Codes RS : Delivers to 6 th Floor hallway RH : Delivers to Lehman Suite CS : Delivers to Shipping & Receiving OH : Delivers to Shipping & Receiving

15. CLIO Location How CUL demarcates collections off,dic : Dissertations off,rbms : Archival material off,rbx : Printed books off,uacl : University Archives off,oral : Oral History

16. Accessions/Retrievals by CLIO Location TOTAL 81,414 / 20,087 off,dic : 30,861 / 287 off,rbms : 58,032 / 18,452 off,rbx : 17,874 / 619 off,uacl : 4,153 / 451 off,oral : 1,355 / 896

17. RBML Monthly Accessions

18. RBML Total Accessions

19. RBML Accessions by CLIO Location

20. RBML Requests

21. Other Data Projects Retrieval rate Data categories –Find data at ReCAP: StatisticsStatistics –Or CUL: ReCAP Data CenterReCAP Data Center Usage rate by publication date Use by language

22. Retrieval Rate Retrieval rate is a measure of collection use Target retrieval rate is 2.00% Percentage of ReCAP collections retrieved during a twelve-month period (Calendar or FY) One technique to gauge overall use Important factor for ReCAP facility staffing model

24. Data Categories –Barcode –Delivery Location –Default Delivery Location –Date –Time –Type –Patron Group –Bib ID –Format –Publishing Date –Language –Title –Holdings ID –Call Number –Enumeration/Chronology –Item ID –CLIO Location –UNI –Hashed UNI –Year of Request –Month of Request –Day of Request –Hour of Request –Minute of Request

27. System-wide Request by Language 326,591 total requests 2002-2009 203 different languages requested English accounts for 63.27% of all requests Top 10 languages account for 93.53% of all requests LanguageCountPercent eng20663463.27% jpn169555.19% fre162954.99% chi161744.95% ger156944.81% spa92882.84% ita79182.42% rus77992.39% none52691.61% kor34261.05% ara22370.68% n/a16210.50% heb12150.37% hin10880.33% per10690.33% tur10340.32% por10300.32% lat9950.30% urd9610.29% pol8840.27%