337 seminar4 g_rebeccahaines

193 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
193
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Becky Haines. I'm the Senior Director of Publications for the American College of Radiology-American Roentgen Ray Society, a ca. 100-million dollar combined organization with locations in Reston VA, Philadelphia PA, and Washington DC. Despite the size of my organization, I'm going to talk about one of our journals today that is run very much like a small society publisher, which is what we were until 1 year ago when we merged with our sister organization the ACR. How many of you work on 1 journal? Fewer than 5? 10 or less? My goal today is to take you through our process of implementing automation at various steps in our internal process and highlighting the off the shelf nature of our choices and the configurability of the systems we use.
  • We dove in head first. We took ca. 4 months to set up the system and make the move from RR to EM. Had planned for January 2007, but had to do it in February. Purposely selected a product that offered both peer review and production management. At the time, we considered EM/PM to be superior to MS Central. We made several site visits to compare. Since we controlled all of our own editorial and production work, we could time the switch and manage the resubmissions from the old system to the new system. That's not to say it wasn't difficult, but the flexibility of the EM/PM made it possible to create ms types that helped us keep track of submissions from the old vs. new systems. Staged or phased approach. A lot of vendor support and because we were early adopters and testers it was cost-effective. We ran both systems overlapping for about 6 months. We launched PM several months after EM. And we switched from Cadmus Rapid Edit to Editorial Express when we made the final cutover from RR.
  • Tried to use it for our magazine, but discarded in favor of SharePoint Initially Staffed and Administered primarily by Production Coordinator Administration rights shared among management team Well documented and relatively easy to configure and alter based on project needs Used for AJR; separate site for AJRII Configurable to accommodate articles with distinct workflows like CME (which is an entire presentation to itself!) 24/7 and seldom offline (even when we’re tired and would like it to be) Other projects run through AJR site Categorical Course A2D Other book projects
  • Roles allow right level of user interaction Allows easy use of offsite freelancers One team member is in South Africa Accurate tracking and reporting Deadline monitoring Document repository Allows task and file interaction between departments Allows information sharing and research projects Speeds production by allowing modularization of tasks across multiple staff working on various pieces of manuscript
  • 24/7 MEANS 24/7 as well as global. Describe alternate contact or out of office options. Reporting is rudimentary Flag system can be overwhelming if you get a bit too “flag happy” If not used correctly can create mayhem—close those tasks darn it! This week’s example involved tasks that could not be closed because a staff person had multiple roles and the other staff person couldn’t proxy because they lacked a certain permission. It’s not easy to get rid of someone in the system (see bullet above…sigh!) More options add to greater complexity; i.e., configurability can = confusion for a small shop. Just because you can do something in the system, doesn't mean you should.
  • Configurability = responsibility
  • Looks simple here, but according to Aries, we make the most of the system. Not sure if they mean that as a compliment.
  • Describe automated assignment of files to outside vendor and tracking of progres Connects EM to PM Used to be necessary to upload in EM to run through PM, but no more
  • Describe value of modular approach and concurrent tasks
  • Describe value of notes field and production and back up use of system. This process is allowed throughout the production flow. For actual work files Production uses our server. Clarify difference between repository and processing of work.
  • Excellent management tool for managers as well as for managing own work
  • Describe value of tracking author activity in the system and how our authors made the transition to working with the system
  • Too busy to go back and fill in vol., pg. numbers etc., but hope to get to it one day and use the reporting features as a result.
  • Show our copious list. Very useful now we can sort on it. Helps people pay attention to notes.
  • All of the same advantages for a single project like those for a single issue of the journal New roles can be established for new editors, etc.
  • New letters and new article types set up
  • Invite submissions using proposal process Sometimes we do what’s expedient to get the job done; proxy on behalf of timid users and push work through the system Great to generate status reports
  • Complex 330 case project simplified Saved 2 doctors who lost their presentations by having an image repository for them and being able to assign a task and files to them…no ftp, etc.
  • Work with remote editor and vendor
  • Not able to send multiple approvals to for one document, but still better than before and we can use e-mail for the last step of this process
  • Two Sites—AJRII
  • Allows very different processes and workflows without mucking up AJR Allows tracking and reporting without filtering
  • Since its quarterly, it’s not in our face Slowly deviates from AJR and then we have to do a big catch up usually with Aries help
  • You’ll need enough volume to make it cost effective You’ll need a good understanding of your process but it doesn’t need to be completely documented because the set up process will force this You’ll need a tech savvy person (hopefully more than one) who has an overall understanding of the workflow or who is willing to learn it. You’ll need to be a bit fearless re making changes because the flexibility of the system encourages it
  • Don’t forget to change your numbering scheme at the beginning of the year and don’t start with the same number even if you change the prefix; Don’t hard code anyone’s name or contact info into any system letters if you can help it Paper folders: it’s not an age thing, it’s a convenience thing
  • If you want to gain better control of your process and recognize improvements in: Time to publication--we can publish in as little as 3 weeks if necessary File retrieval—no more warehouse or musty file folders Improve intra- and inter-team communication—notes, notes, and more notes Minimize errors—flags can save you Learn more about your process so you can keep improving it
  • 337 seminar4 g_rebeccahaines

    1. 1. AutomatedWorkflow at the AJR An “off-the-shelf” implementation of production automation Becky Haines bhaines@acr-arrs.org
    2. 2. The American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) Published continuously since 1906 Published by the American Roentgen Ray Society (founded in 1895) Self-published since the 1980s Online with HighWire since 2000; back issues to 1965
    3. 3. American Roentgen Ray Society $10 million organization About ½ of the budget is Publications related 20,000+ current members; 24,000+ current readers Educational focus (Annual Meeting, e.g.) Recently partnered/merged with American College of Radiology
    4. 4. The American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) Largely proffered papers  ca. 2,000 submission per year  Multiple article types; largest category >1,000 are original research papers Double-blinded peer review  ca. 3,600 reviews per year  CME for review offered
    5. 5. The American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) Tiered editorial structure  EIC  12 Section Editors  50+ Assistant Editors  Super Reviewers (pool of ca. 100)  1,600 Reviewers
    6. 6. American Roentgen Ray Society Publications Department AJR (300+ page monthly) AJR Integrative Imaging (80-page educational quarterly) JACR (uses EM via Elsevier) 1 monthly CME subscription product for technologists Two 32-page magazines print and digital (1 monthly and 1 quarterly) 1 monthly e-newsletter Two 300+-page book projects annually Assorted books, monographs, and other projects
    7. 7. Publications Department Services Product development Copy editing and proofreading Page layout and graphic design Project management from author to delivery
    8. 8. Publications Department Staffing Scholarly Editorial  1 manager, 2 peer review, 1 production coordination/tracking, 5 FT copyeditors, 3 to 5 PT freelancers Magazine Editorial  1 manager; 1 production manager, 1 editorial manager (TK), 2 writers Production  1 manager, 2 production/graphic artists, 1 project manager, 1 production assistant (TK)
    9. 9. Automated Workflow Launched with Rapid Review in 2002 Re-launched with Editorial Manager and Prepress/Production Manager in 2007 Aries products selected specifically because of PM and enhanced references Configurability of the system was major selling point Semi-automated workflow  EM/PM (xStyles for references)  DJS Edit Express
    10. 10. Automated Workflow Staffed and Administered by Production Coordinator Administration rights shared among management team Used for AJR; separate site for AJRII Configurable to accommodate articles with distinct workflows like CME 24/7 and seldom offline (even when we’re tired and would like it to be) Other projects run through AJR site  Categorical Course  A2D  Other book projects
    11. 11. Automated Workflow--The Good  Role and queue based  Easy use of offsite freelancers  One team member is in South Africa  Accurate tracking and reporting  Deadline monitoring  Document repository  Task and file interaction between departments  Information sharing and research projects  Modularization speeds production but still provides dashboard view
    12. 12. Automated Workflow— The Not So Good 24/7 MEANS 24/7 Reporting is rudimentary Flag system can be overwhelming if you get a bit too “flag happy” If not used correctly can create mayhem—close those tasks darn it! It’s not easy to get rid of someone in the system (see bullet above…sigh!) More options add to greater complexity; i.e., configurability can = confusion for a small shop
    13. 13. Highly Configurable
    14. 14. AJR Automated Workflow from Start to Finish Galley layout MS prep post-acceptance Copy editing A E P (includes image prep) Correction check Front end corrections Front end proofing E P E Galleys mail to author Compile Page layout A E P Back end proofing and Pages mail to author To notebook/press P E page compile A and SEA = Admin; E = Editorial; P = Production
    15. 15. Assign Translation Task to DJS  Automated outside vendor task  First step in our automated manuscript process  Applies style and format macros  Checks callouts and manuscript items  Generates a styled Word document and tables  Formats and validates references
    16. 16. Assign file prep and contact sheet tasks to staff  Allows multiple staffers to work on article preparation sequentially or concurrently  Distributes clerical or technical tasks appropriately  Files accessed as needed
    17. 17. Assign layout task and files
    18. 18. View Individual’s Task Assignments  Monitor workload  Reassign tasks  Proxy and complete
    19. 19. Assign Galley Mailing to author
    20. 20. Sharing files and reducing processing time Author replies are uploaded Copy editors have access to all files While proofreading, copy editors can check for author and section editor replies Allows for compression of multiple tasks into one Speeds production and minimizes task reassignment
    21. 21. Confession re Post-Production Tasks  PM offers post- production data collection  We haven’t found the time to do it yet, but it’s on our list
    22. 22. Flags and More Flags
    23. 23. Other Projects—Categorical Course
    24. 24. Other Projects—Categorical Course
    25. 25. Other Projects—Categorical Course
    26. 26. Other Projects—A2D
    27. 27. Other Projects—A2D
    28. 28. Other Projects—A2D
    29. 29. Two Sites—AJRII Pros  Keeps divergent workflows truly separate  Keeps statistics cleaner and easier to monitor  Keeps EICs out of each others’ business  Makes it easier to get a snapshot of each journal’s work  Keeps smaller journal from getting “lost” in bigger journal workflow
    30. 30. Two Sites—AJRII Cons  Can be overlooked in daily work on more frequent publication  Workflows become so divergent the 2nd site may not be updated promptly when changes made
    31. 31. Automated Workflow Musts Volume = cost effective Know your process Staff resource Fearlessness
    32. 32. Things we didn’t think about when we started Numbering scheme Hard coded names and contacts in letters That we’d still cling to paper folders That we’d be able to respond to requests for change so quickly The system would allow us to understand our entire process better  Individual or modular tasks are apparent to all  Transparency in process encourages responsibility and accountability  The system ties a bow on the package that everyone wants
    33. 33. Go For It, If… You have enough volume You have enough complexity (and who doesn’t these days!) You have geographically distributed staff, authors, or vendors (and if you don’t, you should) You want to take control of your processes You do your own editing and page layout or want to
    34. 34. And Even If… You don’t have an XML-based workflow You don’t use a structured pagination tool You send files to HighWire and they send them out to be formatted for their DTD You think you are behind the technology 8 ball
    35. 35. Automated Workflow is for you: If you want to gain better control of your process and recognize improvements in:  Time to publication--we can publish in as little as 3 weeks if necessary  File retrieval—no more warehouse or musty file folders  Improve intra- and inter-team communication—notes, notes, and more notes  Minimize errors—flags can save you  Learn more about your process so you can keep improving it

    ×