Emea, March 2011

Looking for more efficient workflows

the Amsterdam experience

University Library

EMEA 2011 / Marion van Brunschot 2

Introduction the University of Amsterdam the University Library

More efficient workflows in Amsterdam current situation goals roadmap international standards do’s and don’ts future

The Dutch perspective


University – facts & figures one of the larger comprehensive

universities in Europe member of the League of European

Research Universities rich history (1632 - Athenaeum

Illustre) > 30.000 students > 5.000 staff ± 250 study programs scientific output:

381 PhDs

7.900 scientific publications annual budget ± 600 million euro


University Library - facts & figures

largest Dutch (physical) collection books: > 4 million journals: 145.000 e-journals: 22.000 e-resources: 274.000 manuscripts: 70.000 letters: 500.000 maps: 125.000 museum objects: 109.000 prints, posters & photo’s: > 20.000 > 1. 000 specialised collections and archives a.o. book

history, cartography, Jewish culture, religious and

zoological collections, cookery books and comics 183 fte (221 staff) annual budget 35,3 million euro


Special Collections


Archeological Museum & University Museum


University Library - mission

state-of-the-art library services

service oriented

innovative

reliable caretaker of cultural heritage


Front-office efficiency / RFID & self checkout


Back-office efficiency / current situation

Less money

24

24,5

25

25,5

26

26,5

27

27,5

28

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Less staff

Large back-logs

New tasks / more complex tasks


Back-office efficiency / goals

do more with less people add more value and enhance services by focussing on:

unique materials (special collections etc.)

unique tasks (repositories, digital publications etc.)

improved user experience

timely delivery reduce existing back-log substantially


Back-office efficiency / roadmap

1: select and implement a new ILS (2008-2009)

2: adopt and implement international (metadata) standards (2009)

3: convert existing database (2008-2009)

4: outsource tasks approval plans /slip orders (2002-....)

import (and export) metadata in local ILS (2010-....)

shelf-ready publications (2011-....)

5: focus on external platforms and services (2010-....)

6: upgrade staff knowledge and (language) skills (2007-....)


Back-office efficiency / international standards

Dutch ISBD based cataloguing rules

Since 2007 Amsterdam campaigns for nation wide acceptance ofinternational (metadata) standards

In 2009 Amsterdam migrated to a new ILSand started cataloguing locally using MARC21 and AACR2


Back-office efficiency / international standards

data structure: MARC21, Dublin Core, TEI, EAD content standards: AACR2, DACS, CCO, ISAD(G) authority files:

Dutch: GOO, NBC, STCN (printers)

International: AAT, LCC, LCSH exchange formats: MARC21, MARCXML, MODS, DIDL


Back-office efficiency / do’s and don’ts

focus on international standards and (innovative) metadata developments

adhere to international standards ‘as is’ make maximum use of existing functionality, tools,

guidelines, workflows, mappings….



don’t translate reduce conversion activities to a minimum make one department responsible for the acquisition and

metadata of both physical and digital collections focus on other (related) metadata standards, linked data…

Source: Seeing Standards by Jenn Riley, Indiana University, 2009-2010



hire metadata librarians instead of cataloguers import, export, re-use and link metadata to the max be willing to ‘sacrifice some quality’ for the greater good

think and act global, instead of local and/or national


Back-office efficiency / the future

November 2010: workshopWorldCat & Connexion

March-April 2011: pilot cataloguingin WorldCat using Connexion

2nd half 2011: cataloguing in WorldCat using Connexion



GGC / NCCUnion Catalogue

ALEPHLocal Catalogue

Z39.50 authority & bib records

daily upload (new) bib recordsFTP

WorldCat

bib recordsZ39.50

bib records & specific data2-way SRU



GGC / NCCUnion Catalogue

ALEPHLocal Catalogue

WorldCat

Connexionbib records & holdings2-way SRU

2-way SRU or Z39.50?



some WorldCat / Connexion issues:

Dutch authority files (personal) names

researcher (author) identifiers (DAI)

keywords (GTT)

classification (BC)

most efficient workflows

synchronization WorldCat - local Aleph system



additional services / functionality: WorldCat Collection Sets: pre-packaged sets of MARC

records for vendor materials with ongoing record

delivery and updates WorldCat Collection Analysis: collection evaluation,

comparison and planning WorldCat Selection: integrated, automated materials

selection and more ….


Back-office efficiency / the Netherlands

a lively debate is going on concerning international (metadata) standards and the Dutch information infrastructure

until quite recently most Dutch (university) libraries, including the Royal Library:

still focussed mainly on the national union catalogue (GGC), the national

infra-structure, national rules and formats and the national authority files… saw no need to adopt international cataloguing standards (MARC21), other

than as an exchange format had a strong tendency to adjust international systems and standards to

local Dutch customs and traditions (MARC21/Ned)



recent developments: two weeks ago the Dutch University Librarians

decided to

Phase 1 implement MARC21 as an exchange format

Phase 2 implement MARC21 as a cataloguing format



Amsterdam’s preferred outcome: general implementation of international (metadata)

standards collective Dutch migration from GGC to WorldCat WorldCat ‘view’ or subset for specific Dutch purposes

(national bibliography, ILL etc.) incorporation of the Dutch (personal) names authority

file(s) & Dutch author identifiers (DAI) in WorldCat / Connexion (data linked through VIAF...)


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Emea, March 2011

Education

Transcript of Emea, March 2011