Navigating the Flow of Value-Streams to the Seas of Collection Management, Acquisition, and Preservation.
1. Navigating the Flow of Value-Streams to the Seas of
Collection Management, Acquisitions, and
Preservation.
Greg W. Voelker
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, greg.voelker@unlv.edu
Richard J.W. Zwiercan
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, richard.zwiercan@unlv.edu
Michael Frazier
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, michael.frazier@unlv.edu
Charleston Conference 2013
November 8, 2013
8. What We Have Done
Central Gathering Place
Daily Pick-ups
Tracking
9. What We Have Done, cont.
Evaluation Process
Collection Management criteria
Preservation Lab criteria
10. Collection Management criteria
Table 1.
1. # of Check Outs
= or > 5
Yes
Go to #2
<5
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #2
2. Collecting Criteria: approval, regional, core, areas of distinction
= 0 or 1
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #2
= or > 2
Yes
Go to #3
3. Number of Copies
=1
Yes
Go to #4
>1
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #2
11. Collection Management criteria, cont.
Table 2.
4. Are there newer editions
No
See next line
Send to: Value Stream #3
No
Is there a newer Ed.?
Send to: Value Stream #2
Yes
Do we own a newer Ed.?
Yes
Go to #5
5. GWLA/LINK+ holdings
GWLA
LINK+
= or > 10
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #2
< 10
Yes
See next line
= or > 10
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #2
< 10
Yes
Send to: Value Stream #5
12. Preservation Lab criteria
Table 3.
Preservation Lab Criteria
(these are additional criteria to UNLV)
Does it have cultural/historical Significance?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is it a rare item?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is it oversized? (note: unless doesn’t meet Collecting
Criteria)
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is it a Ref. Item?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is the replacement over $40?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is it a special request?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
Is it a paperback (not bond)?
Yes
Send to VS #1
Does it have a gift plate?
Yes
Send to P-Lab
13. What We Have Done, cont.
Value-streams
Bindery
Liaison evaluation
Re-order
Quick repairs
P-Lab
14. Value of the Value-Streams
Table 4.
Cost w/o Evaluation Process
Type of Repair
Total cost
per/repair type
# of Items
Per item cost
Re-Order/Replacement
65
$20
$1,300
Spine Replacement
259
$35
$9,065
Rebind
280
$80
$22,400
Pamphlet Bind
65
$35
$2,275
Bindery
561
$80*
$44,880
Tip In
86
$5
Withdrawal
518
$57.50**
Total Cost (projected)
*if sent to P-Lab would be calculated as Rebinds
**combined as spine replacements/rebind cost
$430
$29,785
$110,135
15. Value of the Value-Streams, cont.
Table 5.
Cost with Evaluation Process
Type of Repair
Total cost
per/repair type
# of Items
Per item cost
Re-Order/Replacement
65
$20
$1,300
Spine Replacement
259
$35
$9,065
Rebind
280
$80
$22,400
Pamphlet Bind
65
$35
$2,275
Bindery
561
$20*
$11,220
Tip In
86
$5
$430
Withdrawal
518
$3*
$1,554
Total Cost (actual)
$48,244
Total Savings
$61,891
Percentage of Savings
*cost savings based on type of value-stream
56%
20. References
Byrne, A. (2013). The Lean turnaround: How business leaders use Lean principles to create
value and transform their company. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Connor, G. (2008). Lean manufacturing for the small shop (2nd ed.). Dearborn, MI: Society
of Manufacturing Engineers.
Liker, J. (2003). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest
manufacturer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Martichenko, R. O. (2008). Everything I know about Lean I learned in First Grade.
Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Editor's Notes
Video from Michael establishing the setting.
Greg – Policy:Anything and everything could be taken up; if it looks damaged, take it to the lab.What to work on?: Special Collections items, Stacks, or Branch items? Are there higher-use items that should get priority?No flow: Direct – items would wait at Circ; can items be found? Constant – no set number of books per period (e.g. 10/week), irregular pick ups.
Greg – Initial State: Expanding collection of books filling shelves and carts. (The project had been started before these were taken; not as bad as it was.)
Greg - what did these lead to…? :Backlog:Overwhelmed the workload creating a large inventory, sometimes in the thousands. Impacted when lab staff went from 2 to 1.Delays: Shelf set aside at Circulation. Who would call the lab when it got filled? Lead Times for repairs could be several months. This time grew as the backlog did. Larger amount of items reduced the ability to organize within the lab. Rush requests difficult to find.Costs: Wasted work time and resources if item withdrawn after repaired. Extra cost, less space in Stacks if a replacement was purchased.Value:None. Work was being done for work sake.
Greg –Stakeholders: P-Lab, Spec.Coll director, Stacks, Circulation, ILL; and of course the users. What do they want the process to be? How does it impact them?Cost/benefit: Effort in balances with value out. Reduced time / reduced expenditures / strengthened collection / user satisfaction.Access: Items are returned to circulation as fast as possible; ideally same-day. Items can be found anywhere in the process.Staff time: One-piece flow means less management by Conservator. P-lab can focus on preservation and new Spec. Coll. items.
Greg – Before: Clutter; tools and papers strewn across work area.After: Tool arranged in set areas, and labeled; progress of current work easily seen.
Richard –Gathering:already existing “Needs Repair” shelf located behind Circ.Easily accessibleMost needs repair travel through Circ. Pick-ups:Daily pick-ups (ILL students), already in their workflowCreated flow and eliminated batchingTracking:Developed 3 specific accounts based on locationsAble to locate items quicklyEnable to establish a Takttime, # operators, and lead times
Richard –Collection Mgmt: See Tables 1 & 2P-Lab: See Table 3
Richard –
Richard –
Richard –
Richard –Bindery:Used to repair more circulating based items$20 rebind cost vs $80 rebind (P-Lab) cost Liaisons:To provide final review for withdrawalsThey are provide with a form giving replacement costs, repair cost, # of checkouts, newer ed. availability, etc.Re-order:Any item that fell into the less than $20 bindery cost or $80 P-Lab repair cost.Newer edition Quick repairs:Repairs that were simple and quickTip-ins, torn pages, basic hinge reinformentILL/Acquisitions students were trainedNext steps: the branchesP-Lab:Only items that meet criteriaRe-worked delivery/pickupIncorporated in already established routing
Richard –
Richard –
Greg –Flow: keep delays from happening, finish each item in time to meet goal(s). Lead Time – Waiting time reduced with daily pickups and standardized review of repair need.Takt Time – Work time is kept to how long a task actually takes. Don’t delay access. Number of operators – Hire enough students to fill gaps in a weekly schedule. Intermittent work will lead to backlog.5S: (Sort) Removed unnecessary equipment from the lab. (Straighten) Dedicated workbenches to one task. (Shine) Clean area before shift is over. (Standardize) Set and labeled places for tools. (Sustain) Produced training manuals for reference.Richard -Box making:
Richard - Box Making Process:Directional arrows represent steps with movementNon-movement steps are listed on the right40 minutes (box components only)20 minutes (for heat labeling)60 minutes (glue curing time)120 minutes total lead time
Richard -Crimper Process:Step 15, a duplication of step 8Unnecessary movement (6 times) back and forthExperiment:to make all measurements (board 1, board 2) at the board cutterBring both boards to the crimper with zero movementEliminate step 15Outcome:Cut time for measurements/crimping (from 30min. to 5min)