Melanie Miller/Math: Melanie reported that work on the shift of the Stacks collection on 2nd floor continues.
Mary Brodman/Alexander: Mary reported that shelving at Alexander has increased. The mini-shift of the 2nd floor continues and shelf reading of the collections continues.
Penny Weniger/Douglass: Penny reported that construction on the Sharon Fordham Multimedia Resource Lab (a state of the art media center) on the Ground level will begin soon. Penny has talked to the contractor about the impact dust and debris from construction will have on the collections, so the construction area will be blocked off.
Rob Krack/Alexander: Rob reported that the Brown gift collection has been remediated.
Eddie Suarez/LSM: Eddie reported that the mini-shift of the 3rd floor Periodical Collection has been completed. New stacks guides have been installed. Staff continue to pull items for the weeding project, but the amount has slowed down considerably.
Holly Muller/LSM: Holly reported that many checkouts have been returned to the library, causing an increase of shelving for staff.
Paul Young/Gov Docs: Paul is reviewing the Federal Microfiche deposit at LSM.
Alex Arencibia/Dana: Alex reported that the shift of the periodical collection continues and the library has been busy with end of semester issues.
Jamie from LSM-DTS reported back to the group regarding the questions concerning "in-process" items with accompanying materials and how they are processed. Currently for "in-process" items with accompanying materials, they are fully processed at TAS and then sent to LSM-DTS for processing according to accompanying materials procedures. Once that processing is complete, the item is then sent to the owning library to be taken out of "in-process".
The group had raised questions on the average turn around for these items, how many items had been processed with this workflow so far and if it possible to identify "in-process" items sent to LSM-DTS for accompanying materials processing. Jamie was able to answer the average turn around question (4-5 working days) and number of items processed so far (112 since late February/2007). Jamie has not come across any items with holds during the processing of those 112 items.
The group will continue to follow up on whether "in-process" items sent to DTS hubs for processing need to have their item records flagged and the impact, if any, of 4-5 processing days on "in-process" items that have holds placed on them.
The group reviewed the "In-Process" Overview document. The document discusses the "in- process" workflow as it pertains to Access Services staff and the revision that we will do for each item. The final document has been posted to the Access Service's web site at:
Group Documentation / Collection Management
COLLECTION MGMT. MANUAL / Overview of In-Process Items-April 2007
As part of processing an "in-process" item, CMG staff will check for processing errors on the item and in the "Vol/Copy" folder of the item record. For some problems, CMG staff will take the item out of "in-process", charge it to the appropriate CS-user, and ship it to the appropriate DTS hub. The processing slips for the items will remain in the book. For other problems, CMG staff will fix the problem and take the item out of "in-process".
With NBL sites charging problem items to CS-users before shipping to the appropriate DTS hub, Rob volunteered to work up a draft of the form that will include a section for "in-process" problem items.
4,303 items were identified as having a GEAC RM/LP staff note in the item record. These were items that were reported missing or lost paid in GEAC and with the transfer of items to SIRSI, a staff note was created. 2,012 items had the staff note removed because the item was currently checked out or had circulated at some time after migrating to SIRSI. CMG staff searched for the 2,291 remaining items. 401 items were found in our collections and were processed by removing the staff note. The remaining 1,611 were either charged to the appropriate missing user (627 items) or were withdrawn from the catalog (1,263 items). With the completion of this project, CMG staff were able to process one of the last remaining set of GEAC problem items.
Another possible GEAC holdover observed by CMG staff are item records with a staff note stating "Home Loc: Library Name". Shirley stated that she thought this staff note was part of the processing for reserve items in the GEAC system; Staff Note: Home Loc: Library name was placed in a record for books that where placed on reserve at another location to remember in the catalog what library owned the item. The group recommended that we identify these item records and remove these staff notes as a clean up project. Staff will work on producing a list of these items for the next meeting.
With the group now including revision as part of the "in-process" procedures, a discussion was held on whether we should record specific problems in our statistics. We currently have one catch all category of 'Problems" for "in-process" statistics. Should we include additional statistics for "in-process" items by adding additional criteria to the problem column so that we can track the number and frequency of the problems we now identify. After a group discussion it was decided to have a test period to evaluate if this additional criteria will benefit the group. May and June will be our trial period with a review at beginning of fiscal year.
Another discussion was held on using specific "in-process" statistics to help plot the necessity for a shift and then growth rates for each collection. With the use of Director's Station, we can now break down collections by item number and percentage using Library of Congress sub-classes. The group will continue to discuss how to use this as a tool for calculating collection growth and for shifts.
The following agenda items have been postponed until the next meeting.
There will be no CMG meeting in May/2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
2:30 - 4:30 pm