Identifying ECIP Partner Needs : Survey Results on ECIP Set Up

1. Identifying ECIP Partner Needs: Survey Results on ECIP Set Up Ilda Cardenas, Mississippi State University Libraries Shi Deng, UC San Diego Library Camilla Williams, Library of Congress CIP Program Report at the PCC OpCo Meeting, May 4, 2018

2. Outline • About ECIPCataloging Partnership Program • Define the ECIP Set up Process • The Survey Background • The Survey Design • The Survey Results • Conclusion/Recommendations

3. About ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program A cooperative program for creation of pre-publication data that: • links participating libraries directly to electronic publisher content for new titles. • facilitates the goal of sharing the workload of original cataloging across the nation. • allows libraries to determine publishers, subject areas, or geographic areas for which they wish to provide pre-publication metadata. • requires libraries to be NACO members in order to participate in the program. • BIBCO membership is preferred. Timeline: • 1971-07-01: CIP Program was established • 1972: LC & NLM started cooperative cataloging of CIP • 1979: CIP Advisory Group was established to provide a continuing dialog with libraries • 1995: PCC was established • 1998: ECIP went to live production • 2000-09-15: first NLM ECIP record was created • 2004: began ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program • 2018-05: ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program has 33 partners

4. Define The ECIP Set up Process • Between the time application submitted to CIP and the time moved into production. • It covers system set up, training on Traffic Manager, OnTheMarc, and cataloging review.

5. Background and the Survey • Background: • Mississippi State University joined the ECIP program and encountered difficulties during the set up process. • Troubleshooting issues with help from staff at LC CIP and UCSD. • The Goals: • Find out ECIP partner libraries’ experience with ECIP set up. • Identify areas that need more training/documentation. • Develop best practices to streamline the set up process.

6. Survey Design • The survey has three parts in 11 questions • Part 1. General information (Q1-6): • Questions on institution name (for tracking purpose), PCC membership status, PCC training status, date joined ECIP, date achieved production mode, and number of ECIP catalogers. • Part 2. ECIP Set up—Technical Aspects (Q7-9): • Questions on operating system used at the time ECIP was set up and on experience at various stages of set up. • Open-ended question for comments. • Part 3. ECIP Set up –Creating a record (Q10-11): • A set of multiple-choice questions on experience with ECIP training documentation and experience of working with CIP staff and other partners. • Open-ended question for comments.

7. Survey Result: General Information • Survey return rate: 69%, 22 of 32 partners participated • Type of Libraries: 16 University/College Libraries; 2 each of national, public, & special libraries • Number of ECIP Catalogers: 9 libraries have 1 cataloger, 6 have 2, 4 have 4, 1 has 15 • Membership PCC status: • All participants (100%) are NACO members before joining the ECIP • 18 participants (82%) are BIBCO members, 15 (68%) are SACO members, and 11 (50%) are CONSER members. • 2 participants (9%) joined BIBCO at the same time they joined ECIP

8. Survey Result: Moving into ECIP Production • The trends shows a difference between before and after 2008/2009: average 0 vs. 5 months, excluding 2016-01 and 2016-02 • Background: CIP lost staff and had staff shortage around 2009 • At the time of set up, 4 participants (19%) had Windows XP, 9 (43%) had Windows 7, 7 (33%) had Windows 10, and 1 (5%) had both Windows 7&10

9. Survey Result: ECIP Set up Experience • In 8 areas of set up, most smooth transitions were in cataloging: • 18 reported smooth transition in finishing ECIP records in OCLC • 17 reported smooth transition in creating MARC records using OnTheMARC • Areas of difficulty were getting systems to talk to each other: • 11 experienced difficulty in setting up FTP server for automatic file transfer • 6 experienced difficulty in sending MARC records to OCLC • 5 experienced difficulty in using TCEC to get into OnTheMARC page

10. Survey Result: Helpfulness of ECIP Resources • Most helpful resources: • CIP staff: 21 • OnTheMARC Manual: 18 • ECIP Partnership web: 17 • ECIP Partnership FAQ: 16 • LC-PCC PS on CIP: 13 • OnTheMARC video: 12 • ECIP Partners: 10 • Least known resources: • CIP Advisory Group web: 13 • DCM D8 CIP procedures: 12 • OnTheMARC video: 7 • LC-PCC PS on CIP: 5 • ECIP Partners: 5

11. Survey Result: Comments Received Comments received on set up: • Communication between catalogers and IT staff. • Issues between systems talking to each other: TCEC to OnTheMARC, OnTheMARC to OCLC, and FTP to LC. • Campus network security creates barrier for LC access FTP server. • Different systems affect set up differently. • Easier experience for libraries with Voyager than libraries with OCLC. • Some also run into technical issues while in the production mode. • Suggest a user group and update ECIP FAQ page. • Suggest to have some ECIP participants develop a training module. Comments received on resource helpfulness: • Catalogers want feedback: “No news is good news”/could use more feedback after submitting records. • Initial training and review—increase time in training mode. • Have some ECIP participants develop a training module that could be posted online for new ECIP members. • Some portions of training and documentation may need to be tailored towards ECIP partners who use OCLC. • Instructions on cataloging in various documents needs to be reviewed, consolidated and presented consistently in LC-PCC PS. • Some keep their own wiki page with an FAQ as well • “Publisher contact has been very responsive.” • “CIP staff are super helpful and really make this process run smoothly” and “CIP staff has been outstanding over many years.”

12. Conclusion/Recommendations • Ask CIP staff at any stage if unsure about something or an issue came up. • Increase communication among ECIP partners and CIP staff through a listserv or provide a directory of partners’ contact information in case there are questions. • Encourage ECIP Partners to share their internal documentation on their public website for the benefit of all ECIP partners. • Catalog record critique / peer review—pair new partners with veterans. The veterans may be able to peer review records (especially for single ECIP partner catalogers). • Create a training module that is tailored to partners who use OCLC Connexion. • Create an ECIP set up documentation for partners who work on OCLC Connexion. • Consolidate ECIP documentation/training materials in one place (or at least build awareness that they are out there). • Understand that due to the sensitivity of campus network security, working with campus IT with set up of ECIP software and ongoing maintenance is important for ECIP cataloging to run smoothly. Every campus or system is different.

13. 2015-2017: average 144 titles/pub date, 97% purchased 2009: 3,495 Titles, 7%; 2017: 7,505 Titles, 13%

14. Reference • Karl E. Debus-López , Diane Barber , Caroline Saccucci & Camilla Williams, “The Electronic Cataloging in Publication Cataloging Partnership Program: A Model for Cooperative Cataloging for the Twenty-First Century”, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, no. 1-3 (2013): 25-54. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2012.719072 • Library of Congress, “A brief history of the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program at the Library of Congress”, Library of Congress website, accessed April 10, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/partners/history.html • LC CIP Advisory Group, “CIP Advisory Group Meeting” (at ALA annuals), accessed April 10, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/cag/

15. Questions?Thank you! Shi Dengsdeng@ucsd.eduUC San Diego Library Ilda Cardenas icardenas@library.msstate.eduMississippi State University Libraries Camilla Williamscewi@loc.gov Library of Congress CIP Program