1. The University of Edinburgh Where are our books : improving the recommendation to shelf process EVUGM September 5 th 2003 Jeremy Upton Bibliographic Services Manager, Edinburgh University

2. The University of Edinburgh Aims Suggest why we should invest time and energy in improving the workflow from recommendation to supply to help current and future needs How we might reach goal of single keyed/searched for information Show how existing technology can suggest ways to move forward Show how existing technology is highlighting current need

3. The University of Edinburgh Outline of presentation Look at experience in Edinburgh University Library of setting up recommendation form Review of existing products on offer: Online selection Assistant Readinglist direct Vendor system Suggest how existing elements within Voyager could be utilized to provide the functionality needed by our users and staff

4. The University of Edinburgh

5. Edinburgh University recommendation form Summer 2000 still using triplicate paper forms, produced by external printers Pressure from academics to allow electronic submission of recommendations, highlighted in Library Strategy document Examples from other commercial products e.g. Amazon Pressure from Library staff in Acquisitions and other divisions to improve design of form

6. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Analysis of the work flow Academic completes recommendation form Form to liaison Librarian to approve spend Form to Acquisitions Team to place order on system either by keying or by importing data, catalogue checked Order placed Needed to be very careful analysis of audit/financial control

7. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Implementation Took existing form and tried to replicate electronically Design work with Systems staff One year trial with selected departments. Comments fed into process Comments from Library staff

8. The University of Edinburgh

10. Edinburgh University Recommendation form Within one year, 78% (7386) of recommendations being received electronically Reduction in the number of keying mistakes Easier for clerical staff to contact recommenders, empowerment of staff to work through problems

11. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Clear identification of recommenders Department/School affiliation for allocating correct fund Required form elements, ensuring all essential data present Legibility for staff: Edinburgh University Orders many non-English and non-Roman items World wide access to form: academics on research trips in the summer

12. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Edinburgh University large complex organisation: helps to have controlled single method for recommendation

13. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Problems Any change requires work to convince staff and users that the change is worthwhile Does not really give our recommenders the functionality they need to track their orders: –Not possible to keep electronic copy of recommendations –Recommenders not notified when books arrive –Budget holders cannot track how much is being spent by individuals –No easy access to financial information about funds

14. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommendation form Library side Still having to rekey/re-search for bibliographic information to place orders Aware could do more with the form but do not have the in house resource to develop further, database products Constant need to update form, staff changes, University restructuring, only systems staff have knowledge of necessary software

15. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh University Recommnedation form So Have gone as far as we can with the resources BUT users still cannot easily track their books

16. The University of Edinburgh

17. Online Selection Assistant Produced by The Library Corporation http://www.tlcdelivers.com/tlccarl/index.asp http://www.tlcdelivers.com/tlccarl/index.asp Advertised as a “vendor neutral solution” Offers much useful functionality to support the recommendation process Integrated into the financial management of the process Placing the acquisition of bibliographic data at the start of the process

18. The University of Edinburgh Online Selection Assistant Many features duplicate what is available on Voyager but does have additional features: –Possible to control access to and ordering from accounts by user –Cross database searching –Ability to add institution specific databases to search options –Restrict database options by user

19. The University of Edinburgh Online Selection Assistant Can help acquire a high quality MARC record looking across a defined set of databases using an agreed hierarchy Company has deals with commercial bibliographic data providers, cuts cost of access for Library customers EDI integrated and “last 5 days database”

20. The University of Edinburgh

26. Readinglist direct http://www.readinglistdirect.co.uk/ Primarily a product designed to manage reading lists Contains functionality which would be of value to the recommendation process Allows the capture of data from external databases to populate pre-existing forms

27. The University of Edinburgh Readinglist direct Future plans: Allow passing of bibliographic information on to liaison librarians for recommendation Cross database searching Direct feed from University registry of staff details Shared single authentication with University

28. The University of Edinburgh

32. Supplier Systems Book selection systems offered by most major book suppliers Academic staff are given access to system, access controlled by Library staff through accounts Recommendations can be passed through Library either for approval or rejection Recommendations can be used to place orders directly on vendor’s system or to produce brief MARC records for Library system, to be EDI’d later

33. The University of Edinburgh Supplier Systems (cont.) Potential for using embedded order data to overlay with full MARC record when books delivered shelf ready Add local information, fund codes, location codes and these can be tied to individual user accounts as defaults

34. The University of Edinburgh Supplier Systems Advantages –A smooth system supplied with quality bibliographic data at the start of the process –No or limited technical support costs for Libraries –Opportunities to influence suppliers –Options available for recommender to track own recommendations

35. The University of Edinburgh Supplier Systems Disadvantages –Management of the system has to be done in house, control of passwords, checking contacts still valid –Tied to single supplier: does not encourage competition –Not all suppliers can supply all materials so potentially individuals have to be trained to use a variety of interfaces

36. The University of Edinburgh

37. Recommendation process: requirements Should be a system which is integrated, does not need Library staff to spend time making systems talk to each other Quality bibliographic data should be available at the start of the process Early inclusion of data on reading lists/course reserve Cross searching databases

38. The University of Edinburgh Recommendation process: requirements 2 Database of users regularly updated with minimum effort: no duplication of effort by Library staff Security: only approved users recommending material and accessing fund information. Security information available from pre-existent institution source

39. The University of Edinburgh Recommendation process: requirements 3 Tracking recommendations throughout process Difference stages of approval for audit purposes Automatic checking of whether item in stock

40. The University of Edinburgh Why Voyager? Integration: an integrated solution, do not have to spend time making different systems talk to each other Cross database searching: EnCompass SDI: EnCompass allows a user to rerun searches against a database and show any new additions to the database

41. The University of Edinburgh

42. Why Voyager? Database of users regularly updated: already direct feed from University registry with email addresses Security: an approved Registry listing showing department affiliation. Edinburgh University looking at single sign on/authentication. This also to be part of EnCompass functionality Early inclusion of data on reading lists/course reserve

43. The University of Edinburgh Why Voyager? Would be need for enhancements (some suggestions on work of Scott Wicks at Cornell) Automatic searching of whether material in stock: match against OPAC and then import MARC record using rules found in cataloguing Tracking of recommendations: already visible in OPAC, could enhance with users being able to have linked access to recommendations AND email alerts

44. The University of Edinburgh Why Voyager? Could use information in patron records to link access to information about funds to departments Automatic vendor selection based on set criteria

45. The University of Edinburgh

46. Conclusion Integrating selection process within Voyager best way to give users the service they want Much functionality already present Purchasing of information will continue whether electronic or print so worth investing in software Metadata will increasingly be available at time of purchase: need systems which can exploit this

47. The University of Edinburgh