[email protected] Access Services coordinator coordinating ‘Place Request’ and Call Slip problem resolution (September 2005) thank you for your
Dec 22, 2015
Access Services coordinator
coordinating ‘Place Request’ and Call Slip problem resolution
(September 2005)
thank you for your help
How Can We Improve Service in OPAC
• Provide more / better information on the OPAC front-end
• Resolve Database (bibliographic) inconsistencies
Selection Display
•In this case, there is only one BIB for the title (so the ‘selection screen’ is bypassed)
Place Requests for Library Materials
•‘Request staff search or delivery’ is one of several wordings…..
This item is not available for Call Slip requests
•Other wordings include Call Slip, Eli Express, Paging, LSF Retrieval
•There is NO information about why the request could not be processed
•The Place Request full screen as it appears to many readers
•The SEND button is placed before any guidance…
Place Request Email
•Every email must be looked at individually; there is no way – as of yet – to separate workflow
PR Entry - WeeklyPR Entry - Weekly Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri
DateStd Mod Std Mod Std Mod Std Mod Std Mod
USER ERROR
A&A Eli Express not offered
Already Charged to patron
Already Requested (already recalled or on hold)
Call Slip Request (inc LSF)
Course Reserve
Course Reserve - alt available for request
Do not own
Film Study Center
Micro or non-print media
MSSA - alt available for request
Non-Circ / Alt available for request
Non-Circ / Current Journal
Non-Circ (alt may be offered)
On Order or Purchase request
Patron privilege constraint
Preservation / RaMP / Unavailable
Recall
Recall - IN PROCESS
Recall / queue
Request data error
SYSTEM LIABILITIES
Non-circ; must page
Non-circ or non-eli; charged
No Item Record
On Hold (recall)
Status = Missing or Lost
Status = Missing or Lost / Alt offered
Transit Discharge or Transit Hold
LSF Transit Discharge within 7 days
Temp Loc
Timing
Other
SYSTEM ERRORS
Cataloging error
Item-type error or inconsistency
MFHD has inconsistent info
Not (fully) suppressed or withdrawn
Split set or MFHD/LOC mismatch
PATRON REQUESTS
faculty reserve
request search or special processing
MISC / OTHER
PATRON RESOLVED
user either selected wrong BIB (e.g., for non-circulating copy), or used web address for form
includes all types (24-hour, 3-day, other libs)
same title and year available with alternate BIB
information is available that item is not owned by libraries
same title and year available for request with alternate BIB
same title and year available for request with alternate BIB
includes all non-circ types, inc reference, divr, etc; alternate edition or year may be offered
patron should use appropriate forms in ORBIS
exceed book limit, or insufficient paging privileges, etc
place hold and send stationery to David Walls
charged to pseudo-patron; place in pending file; follow up with email to dept as necessary
drop-down menu misuse or inconsistent/insufficient info
charged to pseudo-patron or A&A patron, etc, but non-circ; reader needs to get hold somehow
create item and call-slip; sometimes a ghost record
item is requested for hold or on hold; reader can not reserve it w/o intervention
place on search list, and in pending file
if recent (non-LSF) a 'hold' may be sufficient; place in pending file and follow up. If older (inc LSF), place on search list or contact LSF; also heavily used during beginnings of semesters for reserve processing
track reshelving time at LSF
CCLTRAN, PRES, etc
timing issue (was transit discharge, or in process, or on hold at time of request; now can call slip or recall)
empty BIB, relink, other
item-type does not match up with location
does not match up with item enumeration, or difficult for patron to determine if owned
including SMLGEN or SMLCOFF, ORBIS use response, other
•Daily ‘tick’ sheet of Place Request causes
PR Trend Graph
Average = 169 per month over 28 months
(Trend is upward with 06-07 average of 194)
•High and low months are as one would expect
Place Request Trend
0
50100
150
200
250300
350
Nov
-04
Jan-
05
Mar
-05
May
-05
Jul-0
5
Sep
-05
Nov
-05
Jan-
06
Mar
-06
May
-06
Jul-0
6
Sep
-06
Nov
-06
Jan-
07
Mar
-07
May
-07
Pla
ce R
equ
ests
PRs
Average
Fiscal Year Comparison Graph
•Fiscal year comparison validates numbers
Fiscal Year Comparison
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Pla
ce
Re
qu
es
ts
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
Resolution Analysis
Place Request Resolution AnalysisFiscal Year 2006 (July06 - June07)
0
200
400600
800
1000
US
ER
ER
RO
R
SY
ST
EM
LIA
BIL
ITIE
S
SY
ST
EM
ER
RO
RS
PA
TR
ON
RE
QU
ES
TS
PA
TR
ON
RE
SO
LVE
D
OT
HE
R
Pla
ce R
equ
ests
Modified
Standard
•Over approximately 20 months, categories of errors have been developed, tested and refined through daily testing
•‘USER ERROR’ – enough information exists that the user could choose the correct option
•Is the information provided to the user? Is it clear? Is the correct choice encouraged?
•‘modified’ responses are those that go beyond canned cut and pastes…
July 2006 - June 2007
Standard Modified Total
USER ERROR 1176 240 1416
SYSTEM LIABILITIES 353 96 449
SYSTEM ERRORS 31 17 48
PATRON REQUESTS 8 28 36
PATRON RESOLVED 107 1 108
OTHER 18 13 31
2088
Resolution Analysis ‘User Error’ = 69%
•‘User Error’ is by far the greatest category of cause of Place Requests
•And it is the category that presumably can be most easily resolved (working with PIC)
•Remember: Place Request form indicates a failure in the request of some kind
Place Request Resolution PercentagesFiscal Year 2006 (July06 - June07)
69%
21%
2%
2%
5%
1% USERERROR
SYSTEMLIABILITIES
SYSTEMERRORS
PATRONREQUESTS
PATRONRESOLVEDOTHER
Categories of User Error – Monthly
•Month to month analysis of ‘User Error’ shows the categories are consistent across months (with reserves not applicable July and August)
•‘Recalls’ consistently account for approximately 15% of ALL Place Requests (or almost 20% including ‘in process’ recalls)
•Requests for Course Reserves account for 16% of ALL Place Requests (not including July & August)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Ju
l-06
Aug-
06Se
p-06
Oct
-06
Nov
-06
Dec
-06
Jan-
07Fe
b-07
Mar
-07
Apr-
07M
ay-0
7Ju
n-07
User Error Analysis
Other User Error
Non-Circ*
Call Slip
Reserves
Recall-in process
Recall
A&A
Typical User Error – A&A
•A significant number of requests for A&A material have comments similar to this reader’s
System Liability
•System Liability: Not a User or Cataloging error; Voyager software may not be sophisticated enough to handle without manual intervention
•‘Transit discharge’ items are in transit to owning library
•‘On Hold’ items are on hold for a patron and cannot be recalled or held in the Public module
Liability Breakdown (3 month)
11%
22%
18%20%
4%
9%
16%
Non-circ
Transit Discharge
On Hold
Missing/Lost
Temp Loc
Timing
Other
Other includes ‘no items’, visitor recall of bindery item, insufficient ORBIS info, and overlaps at times into cataloging deficiencies
System Liability – Missing or Lost
•Items with status of ‘missing’ or ‘lost’ can only be handled manually
•We try to provide alternates wherever possible
•They are followed up with searches and replacement referrals
Bibliographic Problems
•The valid BIB does not have the item attached; the item was found with an old GEAC BIB using a keyword search
Search Form
•Lost, missing, split set items, items that have been in transit for a while, are placed on a search list
•Also, items that reveal questionable cataloging data, items ‘out on retrieval’ from LSF, purchase requests, and other items
Today's Searches
2/2 Brian, 2/5/07
Author Loc / Stat Title Call #Barcode39002---
VOLSearchNotes
FOS/NOS PatronFollow-up
Notes
Trumpener, Katie CCL / THBardic nationalism : the
romantic novel and the British Empire
PR868 N356 T78 1997
39002018479965 FOS
agruss
Ekman CCL / L Micro expression training tool BF592.F33 E45
2003 (LC)39002069019660 CD NOS purchase request
CCL / LMiracle mirrored : the Dutch
Republic in European perspective
DJ155 M57X 1995 39002034047135 NOS
lindsay
BoxerIsaac Commelin's 'Begin ende
Voortgangh' E230 +C65 1646B 39002037410462
please discharge (it will go to
MUDD)FOS NOS at MUDD
SML Beyond coercion DS39 N34 1987 39002014753124please bring to
my deskFOS alston BIB? Vol?
Taylor, Deems (LSFMUS) Walt Disney's Fantasia ML2075 T239
W2+ Oversize39002045319507 NOS
gardella
sent to SML 12/11/06 -
charged as of 1/29
Follow up - internal
•In addition to tracking individual requests with the patron, follow-up includes resolving cataloging confusion or errors (with the help of catalog.problems), consolidating split sets, emailing departmental pseudo-patrons about recalled items, identifying need for additional reserves material, identifying high usage materials to transfer back to CCL, notifying other libraries of cataloging problems, and more.
The item is part of a partially analyzed set (and had been mistakenly marked missing); search on the cover record reveals a ‘split set’
Current entry to Request Form
•There is no indication why the request could not be processed in ORBIS
Proposed Entry to Request Form
•Assumption 1: Users would prefer to receive their material as quickly as possible
•Assumption 2: In order to receive material more quickly, they will use the system as efficiently as they can
Call Slips
•By default, Call Slips that can not be fully validated are routed to the SML Call Slip Daemon
LSF Call Slips Reports
Batch Incomplete Report
(3 per day)Items Requested from LSF but
Unavailable Report
(3 per week)
•Also, Call Slips that can not be resolved in the LSF Call Slip Daemon are sent via two reports to Access Services
•Access Services removes the Call Slips from the LSF Daemon/s and prints them
•‘Batch incomplete’ Call Slips do not have barcodes
Call Slips Processed Graph
Average = 158 per month
Call Slip Failures Processed
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jul-0
6
Aug
-06
Sep
-06
Oct
-06
Nov
-06
Dec
-06
Jan-
07
Feb-
07
Mar
-07
Apr
-07
May
-07
LSF v Non-LSF Call Slips
62% of Call Slips Processed are ‘failed’ LSF Call Slips
LSF and Non-LSF Comparison
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jul-06 Aug-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Dec-06
Jan-07
Feb-07
Mar-07
Apr-07
May-07
Jun-07
Non LSF
LSF
Major LSF Categories
Major LSF CategoriesJuly 2006 - June 2007
56%
16%
7%
5%
4%
12% Drop Down Menu error
MFHD mismatch or split set
Out on ret or not on file
Other lib
Analytic v cover
Other
FY06-07 1735
LSF 1095 63%
Drop Down Menu error 604 55%
MFHD mismatch or split set 175 16%
Out on ret or not on file 87 8%
Other lib 62 6%
Analytic v cover 38 3%
Other 129 12%
Enumeration / Drop Down Menu Error
•LSF can only process items via barcode; no barcode is provided if the patron neglects to use the ORBIS drop-down menu
Request Staff Search or Delivery- proposed -
May add processing time ?
Possibly disable when item loc = LSF?
Using this area may increase response time (especially for LSF items) – please use the ‘select an item’ drop-down menu when
possible
LSF – Not on File
•LSF ‘Not On File’ are items that are not accessioned in the LSF/GFA software; most often they are items within a split set where the MFHD location is LSF
Call Slip Categories Analysis
Call Slip Categoriesnot including LSF
13621%
9214%
437%41
6%538%
6410%
21634%
Item Type Mismatch
Non Circ
MFHD ploc mismatch
Misc cataloging problem
User Error
Split Set
Other non-LSF
•‘Drop-down menu’ reason accounts for 36% across all call slip ‘failures’
•The next biggest categories are ‘split sets’ (13%), other LSF (19%), item-type mismatch (lsf location ‘flip’ failure – 8%), and requests for non-circulating material (7%).
Call Slip Major Error Categories(including LSF)
8%
13%
5%
2%
2%
36%
19%
15% Item Type Mismatch
Split Set (inc LSF)
Non Circ
MFHD ploc mismatch
Misc cataloging problem
LSF Drop Down Errors
Other LSF
All Other
Split set & item-type mismatch
•If there are discrepancies of any kind between item-type, item location and holdings location, the call slip request will require intervention
Bibliographic data errors
•In this case, the problem appears to be a split set but the BIB reveals it is a monograph…
SMLBAB Call Slip Failures
•Requests for Babylonian collection items account for 7% on average, with spikes of up to 20%
•The first item in the drop-down (and the default item when the drop-down is not used) is the non-circulating Babylonian copy.
•Even if the patron wanted to use the drop-down menu, there is no correspondence to the search results
•Many of the items have no enumeration or chronology
•Holdings record indicates the volumes are published monthly, (and indicates we have the year 1992) but there is nothing that indicates how the reader can request this
•Additionally, the items that do have enumeration are not sequenced properly (so sequencing does not help resolve this request either)
Enumeration / Chronology
LSF Request for use at…?
•Not only is the wording ambiguous, not all restricted collections are represented
•And not only is the user frustrated, collections (such as AOB) are not able to offer the service they would like to
AOB request
•What does this instruct the patron to do?
•The collection is not represented on the drop-down ‘library location’ list
•AOB, for example, would benefit by a direct link to their online request form
AOB online request form
The investigation continues….
Patterns continue to emerge: Bindery, Carrel, Cover Records, non-circ charged items, ‘in-transit’ status, ‘in process’ inconsistencies…