Susan Wynne Martha Hanscom Colorado Association of Libraries Conference 21 November 2009

1. The Effects of Implementing a Next-Generation Catalog or Discovery Tool on Catalogers and Cataloging Functions in Academic Libraries Susan Wynne Martha Hanscom Colorado Association of Libraries Conference 21 November 2009

2. Next Generation Catalogs Common Features • Default search is single keyword search box • Relevancy ranking • Faceted browsing • Spell-checking and/or “did you mean?” • Related results suggestions • Enhanced visual and textual content (TOCs, summaries, cover images, etc.) • Customization and personalization • Single sign-on • Social networking features/user-contributed content • Search metadata from institutional repository or other sources of digital content simultaneously • Article level content searchable within catalog or linked from results screen Adapted from Breeding, Marshall. “Cataloging for the New Generation of Library Interfaces.” Presentation, Copy Cataloging Discussion Group, American Library Association Annual Conference, Anaheim, Calif., June 30, 2008.

3. NGC Examples • Vendor Products • Encore • Primo • AquaBrowser • Endeca • Open Source or Homegrown • Evergreen (also an ILS) • VuFind • Blacklight • Extensible Catalog (a flexible set of open source applications)

4. Encore @ UW

5. AquaBrowser @ Oklahoma State

6. WorldCat Local at University of Washington

7. Blacklight @ UVa

8. Reasons for this study • Most articles and presentations we found focused on the patron/user perspective • Not as much discussion of the impact on cataloging • Exceptions … • Pennell (NCSU) presentations at ALA Annual 2007 and 2008 on data issues exposed by Endeca NGC • Lasater (Vanderbilt) presentations at ALA Annual 2007 and 2008 on authority control issues exposed by Primo • Shadle & Brooking (University of Washington) various presentations and writings on WorldCat Local

11. Research questions • What levels and kinds of input and participation do catalogers have in the selection and implementation decision-making processes? • What are the most common inconsistencies, errors, omissions, or other problems with existing catalog data that are exposed by NGCs? How are these problems identified and corrected? Which problems can be corrected using automated processes and which require manual cleanup?

12. Research questions • Have libraries made staffing changes to cataloging functions as a direct result of implementing an NGC? If so, what kind? • Have catalogers changed regular workflow, policies, or procedures as a direct result of implementing an NGC? If so, in what ways? If not, why not? • What are the unanticipated issues that have confronted catalogers during this process?

13. Research questions • How do catalogers assess the overall impact of implementation on cataloging functions? • Do catalogers have recommendations for others going through this process? • Does implementing an NGC affect catalogers’ views of the catalog and/or their roles in creating and maintaining the catalog?

14. Methodology Online Survey • Distributed via AUTOCAT, OCLC-CAT, NGC4LIB, SERIALST, OLAC-LIST, and RADCAT • Limited to academic libraries that had either implemented or had selected an NGC product • 91 respondents

15. Follow-up interviews • Survey participants could volunteer to be contacted for a follow-up by e-mail or phone • Expanded on survey questions in more depth • New questions about social networking features in NGCs, catalogers’ perspectives on the catalog, and advice for other catalogers implementing NGCs • 13 participants in the interview phase: • Phone interviews with 8 individuals • 5 participated by e-mail

22. Staffing Changes Compared to Implementation Time

23. Changes in Regular Workflow, Policies, Procedures Compared to Implementation Time

24. Most Common Data Problems

25. Themes • Data maintenance and cleanup • Workflow and policy decisions • System/display/indexing • Economic considerations • Communication and administration

26. Data maintenance and cleanup • Obsolete practices or codes • Local practices • Human error • Errors leftover from previous system migrations • Errors introduced by batchloading

27. Workflow and policy decisions • Local or nonstandard practices that may have worked in the ILS but don’t work for the NGC • Multiple format records • Consistency of headings maintenance

28. System/display/indexing • Interaction between the ILS and NGC • Customization options (or lack thereof) • Integration of different types of metadata or different vocabularies

29. Economic considerations • Staffing • Choice of NGC product • Vendor • Home-grown • Open source • Consortial decision

30. Communication and administration • Catalogers’ input into decision making • Administrative support for catalogers’ concerns • Catalogers’ interest in public service and catalog displays

31. Differences between WorldCat Local and most other NGCs • Network level cataloging • Local enhancements vs. master records • Cataloger mindset • Loss of customization of interface, indexing, searching (double-edged sword) • Loss of local control over records, including headings maintenance • OCLC usability studies • WorldCat Local now includes selected article content

33. Themes • Data maintenance and cleanup • Workflow and policy decisions • System/display/indexing • Economic considerations • Communication and administration

34. Our experience • Choice of NGC was secondary to the choice of ILS • Long term commitment to ILS, likely shorter term commitment to the NGC • Simultaneous migration to new ILS and implementation of NGC in summer 2009 • Data cleanup required for migration • Few NGC display problems discovered to date • No staffing or workflow changes directly related to NGC (many changes related to migration and budget)

35. Recommendations • Communication • Involvement in selection and implementation discussions and decisions • Consider local practices (Know your data) • Opportunity to improve the quality of the catalog • Preparation and planning for cleanup projects (even if impact on normal workflow and staffing is minimal) • Opportunity to examine and improve policies, procedures, workflows • Argue for use of authority data in the NGC, if not already available

36. Catalogers’ perspectives • Negative reactions • Loss of cataloger control • Keyword access doesn’t always work well with past and current cataloging practice • “Students like it, but I don’t” • Positive reactions • Confirmation of the need for high quality data • Opportunity to reexamine workflow and practices for greater efficiency and accuracy • Opportunity to increase communication with public services, programmers/vendors, administration • Increased cataloger interest in public views

37. Remaining questions • Has anyone chosen to discontinue using a “traditional” OPAC and switch to a next-generation interface only? If so, why, and how is it working for patrons and staff? If not, which is the primary catalog? • Can the transition to NGC interfaces inform the changes in cataloging rules and/or data structures? (What do we really wish systems could do with our data, and what data is missing from current practices?)

38. Remaining questions • How will RDA/FRBR affect NGCs? • When cataloging at the network level, what local enhancements and edits are “missed” (By catalogers? By users?) • Does the experience of implementing an NGC differ for catalogers in other types of libraries? • Should catalogers have a role in social networking functions of NGCs?

39. Remaining questions • Does implementing an NGC improve communication between catalogers, public services, and systems/programming? • Beyond the current NGCs … when products like Summon seamlessly integrate the catalog and database content, how do these different vocabularies really play together? What about mashing up more non-MARC metadata?

40. Your thoughts and questions

41. Contact us Susan Wynne swynne@uwyo.edu Martha Hanscom hanscom@uwyo.edu Our Project Website http://nextgencatsandcatalogers.wikispaces.com/