1 / 26

ReCAP Update: Butler H&H Summary

ReCAP Update: Butler H&H Summary. Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator Columbia University 1/21/2010. Summary. Review of new request limit Update on REFILE problem Proposed change to EDD policy Request data analysis Zack takes questions. High Volume Request Limit.

zena-contreras
Télécharger la présentation

ReCAP Update: Butler H&H Summary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ReCAP Update:Butler H&H Summary Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator Columbia University 1/21/2010

  2. Summary • Review of new request limit • Update on REFILE problem • Proposed change to EDD policy • Request data analysis • Zack takes questions

  3. High Volume Request Limit • On 11/5 CUL implemented a limit on the total volumes from single title during single request • 20 volume limit • Limit precedent from Prentis • Pop-up alerts patron to limit and provides contact info

  4. High Volume Request Limit • Prevents large-scale and impulsive requests that put burden on CUL and ReCAP staff • Maintains access to longer runs • Pop-up provides staff contact info

  5. Pop-up Display

  6. More Information • Summary and data analysis can be found at: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/alerts.html

  7. REFILE Problem • Turnaround time to re-request a book returned to circulation is approx 4+ weeks • Staff does not think this is acceptable • LITO and ReCAP Coordinator are working to fix • Here’s what’s going on…

  8. In and At Rest REFILE NOT ON FILE Out on Retrieval PWI /PWD Item Status at ReCAP

  9. Refile Problem • In October 2009 requests for items in REFILE began to fail without CUL staff knowledge • After discovery in November 2009 staff opted to prevent request for items in REFILE

  10. REFILE Problem: What Patrons See

  11. What Can Staff Do? • Contact Zack Lane with • Barcode number • Delivery location • Patron UNI • Item will arrive 1-2 business days

  12. Request Analysis • Data from CUL’s archive of ReCAP requests • Supplemented by granular data from CLIO • Accessions data not available for FY10 • Data has been used for: • Net Retrieval Rate • High Volume Limit • Time of Request

  13. EDD Update • Any active UNI may be used to make physical and EDD requests from ReCAP • Including printing UNIs • Suggestion to restrict EDD requests to only current borrowers • Permission matches other document delivery services: ILL, BD, HSL, etc. • All UNIs may still request physical delivery

  14. ReCAP Totals • 3,538,933 total accessions through December 2009 • 41,252 requests already in FY10

  15. Goals • Provide relevant data and analysis to decision-making staff • Inform selection process for direct-to-ReCAP transfers • Help staff better inform patrons • Assist policy creation

  16. 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

  17. 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 Data Categories

  18. off,glx

  19. Conclusions • Data suggest that publication dates 1993-2008 have higher retrieval rate • Total volume retrieved is significant: 30,136 (off,glx 17,932)

  20. 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

  21. Request by Language • 121,467 total requests from off,glx 2002-2009 • 176 different languages requested from off,glx • English accounts for 62.73% of all requests • Top 10 languages account for 92.11% of all requests

  22. Language Analysis

More Related