ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Workflow arrangements and their effect on discharge accuracy

By Pat Weaver-Meyers Access Services Department Head University of Oklahoma Libraries

and Kenneth W. Pearson Circulation Supervisor University of Oklahoma Libraries

The distraction factor and discharge record error.

Every circulation librarian has dealt repeatedly with the problem of patrons claiming they have already returned a book that they have been billed for. Arbitrating such a dispute is dependent on the library staff’s confidence in the accuracy of the discharge records. Many things can affect the error rate during the processing of returned materials: worker alertness, terminal wand misreads, workload, training, etc. In analyzing a fluctuation in error rate, Bizzell Memorial Library at the University of Oklahoma discovered the important role furniture arrangement can play in workflow.

Background

Bizzell Memorial Library circulation operations are automated on a DataPhase ALIS II system. Discharge is completed by wanding in the OCR number of the book and responding to the screen prompts. Annual circulation is approximately 158,000. About three years ago, the circulation department incorporated monthly monitoring of the discharge error rate into their regular statistical procedures.

Originally, this was done as a quality control measure. Based on experiences in billing, we suspected that some problems were occurring in discharge which allowed more than a reasonable number of items to get back to the shelf without being cancelled. At that time, patron’s claims about book return and the number of bills issued was the only resource of information about possible problems. The following is a description of the procedure which evolved over the course of a year and was designed to provide the additional needed information.

A sampling of approximately two hundred items are isolated from the sort area where discharge itens are routed. Selection of these items is also at randomized times to ensure that the effects of different staff scheduling are also governed by chance. These items are then checked against the computer records to determine if discharge of each item has actually occurred. Those items that are found to be incompletely processed make up the percent error.

It was initially presumed that 100% accuracy was an admirable goal, but perhaps unrealistic. However, considering the nature of public relations and the effect discharge errors can have on a patron’s opinion of the library’s competency, a high standard was the goal. Therefore, a less than 1 % error rate was designated as acceptable. It is important here to stop and think about the practical significance of a 1 % error rate. If you cancel 200,000 items per year, for example, a 1 % error rate will allow 2,000 items to be processed incorrectly. That could be a potential 2,000 patrons all with a jaded opinion of the library’s ability to process materials accurately. Also, it means an associated time and effort must be spent searching the stacks for items claimed returned. So, in reality, even a 99 % accuracy rate, which sounds very stringent, remains costly in terms of staff time and library reputation.

Beforethe change, the terminal operator was clearly visible to patrons waiting at the circulation desk.

Afterthe move, the operator is screened from patrons queuing up for service.

Brainstorming

Once we began regular monitoring of the error rate, fluctuations warned the billing staff to be aware of a problem month. For example, one month the error rate soared to 8 % . It was theorized that a completely unprocessed booktruck was passed through to the sort room by accident. Since the monitoring discovered the problem, the billing staff had more confidence in arbitrating in favor of the patron who claimed to have returned books during this period, even if the items were not found in a search of the stacks.

As the monitoring progressed, it became obvious that our goal of a consistent error rate of less than 1 % was not being reached. Repeatedly, staff was retrained to stamp and wand one-book-at-a-time instead of processing groups of books together to avoid mistakes. Also, procedure guidelines were posted on the discharge terminal. The circulation supervisor tested each student worker to ensure their method was appropriate. However, the fluctuations still continued.

After repeated review of the problem, a subcommittee of staff members brainstormed the problem. The committee theorized that the location of the discharge terminal could be contributing to the problem. At that time, the furniture arrangement placed the discharge terminal in view of patrons as they queued up to the desk for service. In that position, any impatient patron could usually get the attention of the terminal operator and force them to interrupt their processing and provide additional assistance. This usually meant that a small stack of books could be left unattended on the desk and even forgotten if the patron crush prevented the worker from returning to the discharge terminal before their shift ended.

Originally it was assumed that the operator’s ability to provide back-up assistance was a valuable asset—hence the location of the terminal. After repeated examination of the entire process though, that advantage was deemed less important than discharge accuracy.

Due to the subcommittee’s recommendation, the discharge terminal was shifted to a new location. In the new location the patron’s view of the operator was completely blocked. This prevented patrons from interrupting the operator and allowed the workers to devote their complete attention to the discharge patron.

Conclusion

Table I compares the error rate for a threemonth period before and after the terminal was relocated. As can be seen, the change in error rate from 1.8% to 1.0% in November, for example, is not a large difference. When it is multiplied by the number of books discharged in a month, however, the practical significance becomes obvious. Even the small differences detected represent a 357-book difference in those materials projected to go through the discharge process with some mistake. The consequent staff searching and patron complaints are also proportionately reduced. Although the number of items discharged in 1985/86 is down slightly from the previous year, the difference in error rates would still account for 332 more mistakes had the number of items processed been the same.

The arrangement of furniture is just part of an ergonomic approach to productivity. In this situation, it also appears to be an integral component of accuracy as well. Combining a quality control measure such as discharge error sampling with an analytic review of the procedures can result in practically significant improvements. This review proved that even basic arrangement of workstations should be included in analysis, as they may have a measurable impact on overall efficiency.

In the current climate of performance measurement and library quality measures, this analysis points to a definite need to include circulation functions. The circulation desk of any library is a focal point of activity and may be the only contact some patrons have with library staff. As a result, their opinion about the services rendered at the circulation desk may dominate their overall assessment of the library’s quality. Therefore, it is essential that circulation procedures are monitored both for quality and efficiency and that any set of performance measures which claims to assess library performance cannot be considered comprehensive without some measure of these services, which are intensively patron interactive. ■ ■

ACRL Publications in Librarianship needs your manuscripts

ACRL Publications in Librarianship, a series devoted to scholarly monographs in academic librarianship, has issued over 40 volumes since 1952. Many of these studies represent distinguished contributions to the history, theory, and practice of academic librarianship.

The editorial board invites authors of booklength studies to submit manuscripts for review. Proposals for manuscripts in progress are welcome and should be accompanied by an outline of the contents. The submission of dissertations is encouraged; however, many may require substantial revision by the author (see the guidelines for converting a dissertation to a book below). Manuscripts will be acknowledged and read by at least two members of the editorial board.

Manuscripts related to the following topics are particularly welcome: administration of college libraries; computer applications; collection assessment; management of reference services; selfdirected studies; and staff development.

Relevance, lasting value, and superior writing describe the manuscripts that we are seeking. Address inquiries and proposals for publication to: Arthur P. Young, Dean of University Libraries, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0803; (401) 792-2666. ■■

How to convert a dissertation or thesis to a book

Editor’s note: These are guidelines adopted by the ACRL Publications in Librarianship Series Editorial Board.

A manuscript designed to communicate mastery of the research process to an examining committee frequently fails to satisfy the requirements of a publisher. Authors submitting theses and dissertations to a publisher may anticipate requests for extensive modifications of their manuscript if it is accepted for publication. Indeed, some effort at revision prior to submission will enhance the likelihood of acceptance.

A book is addressed to an audience that is very different from the audience to whom a thesis, dissertation, or other research report is addressed. These differences include level of interest, prior knowledge of the subject, and objectives in reading the work. Major revisions are usually necessary, even to the most effective works.

Revisions which are often required include deletions, reorganization, and the writing of additional material. Some examples:

•The style of a dissertation frequently requires the repetition of material from section to section.

In many cases this redundancy can be eliminated. Tables often should be deleted or converted into an explanatory narrative.

•Many of the fine points concerning prior research or methodology on the subject should be placed in appendices or footnotes.

•Abstractions must be carefully related to the concrete world through more extensive interpretation than would be necessary in a dissertation or thesis.

The editorial board of ACRL Publications in Librarianship encourages authors wishing to submit theses and dissertations for publication to read the following items prior to submission.

Olive Holmes, “Thesis to Rook: What to Get Rid of,” Scholarly Publishing 5 (July 1974):339-49; 6 (October 1974): 40-50.

Olive Holmes, “Thesis to Book: What to Do with What Is Left,” Scholarly Publishing 6 (January 1975): 165-76.

Constance Greaser, “Improving the Effectiveness of Research Writing,” Scholarly Publishing 11 (October 1979):61-71.

ElsiM. Stainton, “A Bag for Authors,” Scholarly Publishing 8 (July 1977):335-45. ■■

ACRL fellowships for 1987

The Association of College and Research Libraries solicits applications for two fellowships made possible by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. The first, the Samuel Lazerow Fellowship for Research in Acquisitions or Technical Services in an Academic or Research Library, honors a senior vice-president of ISI who made outstanding contributions to these fields. The fellowship of $1,000 is to foster advances in acquisitions or technical services by providing a practicing librarian with funds for research, travel, or writing.

The second award, the ACRL Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, provides an award of $1,000 to a doctoral student working on a dissertation in the area of academic librarianship.

Applications for both awards should be made to Mary Ellen K. Davis, Program Officer, ACRL/ALA, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611-2795, and are due by December 1, 1986. The winners of the awards will be announced at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco in 1987.

To be eligible for the Lazerow Fellowship, a librarian must be working acquisitions or technical services in an academic or research library. The Fellowship supports research in acquisitions or technical services, including the technical services and acquisitions aspects of library automation and library management. Research projects in collection development or the compilation of bibliographies will not be supported by this Fellowship.

Application proposals should be brief (five pages or less) and include the following:

1. Description of research, travel, or writing project;

2. Schedule for the project;

3. An estimate of expenses.

An up-to-date curriculum vitae should accompany the proposal. Seven copies of the proposal should be submitted.

Proposals for the Lazerow Fellowship will be judged on the following:

1. Potential significance of the project to acquisitions or technical service work;

2. Originality and creativity;

3. Clarity and completeness of the proposal;

4. Evidence of interest in scholarship, such as a previous publication record.

Winners of the Lazerow Fellowship will be asked to submit a brief report of their results.

TTie winner of the 1983 Fellowship was Denise Redford, formerly of Stanford University. The 1985 winner was Anna L. Highsmith, head of Copy Cataloging at Texas A&M University, for a comparative study of the cataloging components of serveral automated library systems.

In order to be eligible for the ACRL Doctoral

Dissertation Award, the applicant must meet the following qualifications:

1. Be an active doctoral student in the academic librarianship area in a degree-granting institution;

2. Have all course work completed;

3. Have had a dissertation proposal accepted by the institutions. The application should be brief (less than ten pages) and include the following:

1. Description of the research,including significance and methodology;

2. A schedule for completion;

3. Budget and budget justification for items for which support is sought (these must be items for which no other support is available.);

4. The names of the dissertation advisor and committee members;

5. A cover letter from the dissertation advisor endorsing the proposal.

An up-to-date curriculum vitae should accompany the proposal. Seven copies of the proposal should be submitted and will be judged on the following criteria:

1. Potential significance of the research to the field of academic librarianship;

2. Validity of the methodology and proposed method of analysis;

3. Originality and creativity;

4. Clarity and completeness of the proposal;

5. Presentation of a convincing plan for completion in a reasonable amount of time;

6. Evidence of a continuing interest in scholarship, such as a previous publication record.

Previous winners of the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship were Stanton Biddle (1983), Donald Gould (1984), and co-winners, Vicki L. Gregory (1985), and Joanne R. Euster (1985). This year’s winner is Gemma De Vinney, State University of New York at Buffalo, (see announcement on p. 257).

For further information on either of these two awards, contact Mary Ellen Davis, ACRL/ALA, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611-2795; (312) 944-6780. ■■