Reclassification presentation March 2012


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reclassification presentation March 2012

  1. 1. All change please!The end of the line for UDC and Dewey at Aberystwyth University Dorothy Hartley Bibliographic Services Teamleader Aberystwyth University
  2. 2. Thomas Parry Library
  3. 3. Why did we have all these schemes in use? Merger of institutions • Library of Welsh Agricultural College (WAC) classified by Universal Decimal Classification. • Coleg Ceredigion and College of Librarianship Wales classified by Dewey Decimal Classification. • UCW Departmental agriculture library classified by Library of Congress.
  4. 4. Initial plan : UDC to Dewey• Reclassify UDC material to Dewey to alleviate confusion about shelf order.• Classify in more detail those sections which had grown beyond WAC’s initial expectations e.g. 636.1 Horses.• Eventually the Library of Congress sequence would be weeded and re-classified too.• Carried out a classification mapping exercise and began some work.
  5. 5. What made us change the plan?• Merger of Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Gogerddan (IGER) with University Institutes of biological and rural sciences in 2007.• Strategy to bring all these departments together in one location. It became very clear to us that we needed to use the same classification scheme in all the libraries so that books could be easily transferred from library to library as required.
  6. 6. A few figuresStapledon library 9500 books to be catalogued in house onto LMS and reclassified (from UDC) to Library of Congress.Thomas Parry Library 38000 titles in the main Dewey/UDC bookstockTime scale initially uncertain.Work began in April 2008 Target end date Summer 2012
  7. 7. Issues in Stapledon library• Highly specialised subject matter including foreign language material – original classification needed for approx. 30% of items• Currency and accuracy of found classification numbers – we wanted to maintain consistency so checked for currency on Classificationweb.• Stock duplication between the three locations. Use the same number or assign a current one instead?
  8. 8. Issues in the Thomas Parry library• Library in constant use• Need to minimise disruption for library users• Weeding desperately needed• Need to implement a rolling program to keep books out of circulation for the least possible time.
  9. 9. Keeping people informed• Subject team liaised with academic departments• Announced in library newsletter and university email lists• LOC outline posters and pocket guides• Clear signage maintained• Talk to undergraduate librarianship class using the project as a case study for their course.
  10. 10. Keeping staff on-sideMonthly meetings• to involve staff in all of the teams teams affected• to keep staff informed about the method of working and how the work was progressing.• to identify problems and resolve them.
  11. 11. How did we work?• Books removed from the shelves in small batches.• Class numbers used elsewhere in the AU libraries used where possible or from 050 field or CIP in books.• Class numbers obtained directly from Library of Congress catalogue / OCLC (and bibliographic records for Gogerddan).
  12. 12. How did we work (2)• New scheme code and class number entered on Voyager.• New label printed and affixed.• Books re-shelved in new sequence.• If not all copies of a title are available on the shelf those copies not found needed to be kept on a MFHD with a the Dewey classmark until returned/found.• Any items not found would be known to be missing and removed from the OPAC at the end of the project.
  13. 13. WeedingInitially subject librarians wanted to do this themselves andsome were able to work ahead of the reclassification team.If no class number could be found, subject specialists wereasked to review items the cataloguers felt were outdated orephemeral.Lists obtained from the LMS of items with no circulationhistory for previous 6 years.Picked off items in use and worked on those leaving the restbehind for relegation or withdrawal.
  14. 14. Staff resourcesStapledon Library cataloguing2.5 FTE Bib Services team fitting it around work on new acquisitions + 150 hours from 2 Polish volunteers during first 2 months + 50 hours casual helpThomas Parry reclassificationStaffing averaged out at about 1 FTE but the work was shared by a team of 4.And a HUGE effort from the Collection Management team
  15. 15. Benefits of reclassifying in-house• Flexibility• Gave more time and opportunity for subject team and academic staff to provide input.• Easier way of dealing with highly specialised collections.• Enhanced team-working within and between teams.• Work retained in the local area.
  16. 16. Job done!Reclassification completed ahead of schedulein December 2011.Stapledon Library : Priority task June 2008-Feb 2009 (9500titles)Thomas Parry library : Priority task February 2009-December2011 (27000 titles reclassified from the initial estimate of 38000)Output averaged 1000 titles a month