Home » Publication Pattern Initiative » Survey Results

Publication Pattern Initiative

Survey Results

Summary of responses compiled by Jean Hirons (March 26, 2002)

Completed surveys were received from 14 participating libraries, which includes all libraries who have actively participated since signing on. Of these libraries, 4 are CONSER full/associate members and 4 are CONSER Enhance members.

Institutions who responded to this survey with current CONSER status

A. Your institution's contributions (to be completed by CONSER pilot representative)

1. What tools and shortcuts are used to contribute patterns? (e.g., Bremer macro, in-house macros)

For creating patterns, most libraries reported that they use the Bremer macro and said that it was a great help. Other tools for pattern creation include cut and paste from library holdings records; constant data records in CatME; in-house macros

For loading patterns from OCLC records, Michigan State uses the III loader and other III customers plan to use in future.

One library reported using no tools.

2. Who contributes the patterns in your library? (e.g., serials catalogers, check-in staff, serials staff)

All but one library reported that serials catalogers create the patterns or have the final review. Others involved to a less extent included cataloging technicians, and serials librarians.

3. How do you determine which serials to add patterns to?

All libraries add patterns to serials newly received that meet the scope of the project. Title changes and frequency changes also generate new patterns. One library contributes to periodicals only, several assign based on subject specialties, one reported assigning to titles with frequencies that aren't too difficult, and one library assigns to anything they can!

4. Have you been satisfied with your level of contributions? Please explain.

9 libraries reported that they are satisfied, or more than satisfied. 3 exceeded their goals. Comments were that this was accomplished during staffing shortages and system upgrades but that the extra work was not a drain.

5 libraries reported being less than satisfied. Reasons cited: other projects took priority, the need to get more staff involved, staffing losses, and the fact that many records already contain patterns!

5. How would you characterize the additional step of adding a pattern to a CONSER record? (please comment on time it takes, learning required)

Comments can be summarized as: 1) the initial training takes time and effort; 2) most patterns are simple and take little time to create (1-2 minutes); and 3) more difficult patterns are more time-consuming and more examples in the documentation would be useful.

Other comments:

Those who didn't do on a regular basis had to look up documentation each time a pattern was created (time: 20-30 minutes per pattern; one of these also report not using the macro or other tools)

Harvard data takes more time to edit.

Subsequent patterns for later changes can't be as easily generated using the Bremer macro as it is geared to the first/earliest issue.

Staff are still reluctant to tackle.

6. Has participating in the pilot caused you to revise or consider revising your workflow? Please explain.

4 said they had changed their workflow. Michigan State changed theirs because of the ability to load patterns; others modified their workflow only slightly. Georgia added a new responsibility to one staff member and this resulted in their contribution of over 1000 patterns. At Texas A&M every serial is given a pattern as the last step in processing.

3 libraries have considered changing their workflow: more involvement with acquisitions staff /check in staff or copy catalogers and future implementation of systems with loader capabilities were cited.

7 libraries reported no real change in workflow, saying that adding the patterns is one extra step in the process of serials cataloging. None of these libraries are currently able to load data from OCLC to create check-in records.

7. Is your institution able to use the pattern data contributed by other libraries? Please explain.

12 libraries cannot use; most of these libraries are Voyager or SIRSI customers. There are several III customers who expect to use the loader when they upgrade. One SIRSI library uses the pattern data in order to create the data locally as the pattern data in CONSER records supplies the information needed, even though it can't be automatically generated.

Only Michigan State is truly able to use the pattern data at the moment.

8. Do you wish to see your institution continue contributing, either as a CONSER or CONSER Enhance member once the pilot project is completed?

All said YES!

"It is the best way to persuade our library vendors and others of the need for automated pattern creation from shared cataloging data."

"We are willing to contribute as long as there is no quota."

"I believe that the project is very worthwhile and that we will be able to share data in the future. In the event of future system migration, having that data available will save hours of staff time in creating patterns."

"It's been a wonderful learning experience for us, and we enjoy very much working on this important project."

B. CONSER Initiative (to be completed by Head of Cataloging, Serials, or Technical Services, as appropriate)

The long term goals of the CONSER Initiative are to standardize the creation of pattern and holdings data so that it can be shared among libraries and transferred to a new system. This requires that systems be MARC 21 compliant, that more libraries use the MARC 21 Holdings Format, and that we find long-term means of storing pattern and related holdings data for all to access.

1. In your opinion, how successful has the CONSER Initiative been in raising awareness concerning holdings and pattern data?

4 characterized the initiative as extremely or very successful, 6 as moderately or quite successful, 1 had no opinion.

Other comments (summarized): Successful for sharing standardized data; success with improving MARC format through MARBI proposals; but doesn't extend beyond the participants and needs more awareness at higher levels of administration. The SCCTP holdings workshop is broadening awareness among working staff but more publicity is needed.

"Overall, I believe this project is getting a lot of good press even around the country. As more people learn about what this will do for everyone, I am convinced the vendors will understand the importance of what you are doing. Also, more libraries might be interested in creating new holding patterns as they hear bout the success of the project. In these times of tight budgets more libraries are looking to streamline their processes. This project, as it becomes bigger, will certainly help with this concern." (Michigan State)

2. What areas would you like to see the Initiative take on or increase its efforts in in the next few years?

The overwhelming response: work with vendors to make it possible to use this data. Convey the urgency of the matter while listening openly to their concerns. Encourage vendors to develop tools for loading patterns and working from local sytems.

Other comments:

Education: Find ways to work with library staff to make it easier and more accessible to them. Increase SCCTP efforts and other educational means. Sponsor workshops at professional meetings.

Add more patterns; upgrade batchloaded patterns (i.e., Harvard data) to promote usability.

Resolve the issue of where to house pattern data long term.

Regularize the process as part of the CONSER workflow.

Get word out to the profession about what we are doing.

Make it possible for other non-CONSER members to take a leadership role through working on this.

3. Where would you like to see pattern data stored in the future (e.g., CONSER records, separate files available via the Web, subrecords attached to CONSER records)

The majority (8) prefer subrecords attached to bibliographic records as their first or second choice for the following reasons:

Information should be easily accessible and should not incur extra searching charges; more storage on Web would mean going to a separate place that wouldn't be as useful; storage in bib records over time will be cumbersome and make downloading of bib records a problem.

2 respondents had no opinion.

Other comments:

Store in true MARC fields in CONSER records.

Not subrecords because they could be unintelligible to local systems

No shared standards for local systems; need a "universal" subrecord (JH comment: i.e., the universal holdings record?)

Separate files would work better for large scale batchloading efforts.

It is a step backwards storing this data in bib records when there is a separate MARC holdings format.

Interesting comment: "Store in on the Web. If you say CONSER to a reference librarian, they figure they won't be able to interpret it." (Minot State)

4. How can the Initiative increase its outreach to system vendors, particularly your own, to make use of the CONSER pattern data? (Note: two systems, VTLS and III, can now load CONSER pattern data).

Find ways to convince vendors that it is to their competitive advantage.

Identify libraries that are seeking a system and suggest that the ability to upload and download patterns in MARC 21 be a need in their RFP.

Use vendors' user's groups meetings to present and lobby.

Use NASIG as a forum that includes all interested parties.

CONSER should find ways to demonstrate the ease of creating check-in records for systems that have implemented the standard, or developed loaders. Add this to the SCCTP holdings course.

Be careful about introducing too many new standards (new MARC codes) that will make it difficult for vendors to comply. Listen carefully to their concerns.

Large library customers may have some clout.

Orchestrate organized pressure!

5. Further comments on the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative or the Pilot.

Suggestion: make documentation available in PDF; difficult to print out for training.

"Although many more patterns need to be created or upgraded, I am more than satisfied by the results of the initiative."

"It should prove extraordinarily useful to serials librarians everywhere, and should make a real contribution toward cleaner data, reduced duplicative effort, and better service to library users."

"I'm so glad to see this move forward. I remember discussions nearly 15 years ago about how we could share our patterns. It's good to finally see something concrete and I'm glad that we were part of the pilot, even tough we don't see an immediate benefit."

"It's a great start but I believe it needs more publicity to gain universal acceptance. The vendors may need to take the next step." Locally, take the mystery out of pub patterns in training staff.

"Everyone here at Michigan State University Libraries has been very supportive of Technical Services participating in this project. I am proud of the fact that although we are not a CONSER Participant, we have much to contribute and have done so, including contributing many patterns to the project. We view this project as a great opportunity to mould the national agenda regarding publication patterns. Thank you for asking us to assist in this project, and we look forward to working with you on more projects such as this in the future."

Great! Thanks.

 

Top of Page