1

Music Score ProcessingGREATER EFFICIENCY THROUGH ANALYSIS

• CHUCK PETERS

WILLIAM & GAYLE COOK MUSIC LIBRARY

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

2

Full / Mini; 74163; 61%

Collected Works; 7553; 6%

Performing En-sembles; 4437; 4%

Uncataloged; 35273; 29%

Music Scores = 121,730 Titles

Full / Mini Collected Works Performing Ensembles Uncataloged

3Cook Music Library: Music scores(Number of titles)

Cataloged scores, normal circulation

Full scores 68,058

Miniature scores 6,105 74,163

Collected works 7,553

Performing Ensembles Division 4,437

Cataloged scores: Total number of titles 86,153

Uncataloged scores 35,577

All scores in the library: Total number of titles 121,730

(155,000+ vols.)

4Cook Music Library (Before):Technical Services staff

4 Librarians:

Collection Development Librarian

Print materials cataloger (books and scores)

Sound recordings cataloger

Latin American Music Center materials cataloger (all formats)

2.5 Support staff catalogers

Head of Music Library Acquisitions

Print materials cataloger (books and scores)

Sound recordings cataloger

8 student employees

2 Acquisitions assistants

Book copy cataloger

2 score copy catalogers

Sound recordings cataloger (IU performances)

Bindery preparation assistant

Undergraduate honors assistant

5

The analysis included all processes involving music scores:

• Firm – Approval – Standing orders

• Downloading copy and placing the order

• Initial receipt and processing

• Workflow routing: Fast Cat or Backlog (Frontlog)

• Cataloging: copy cataloging and original

• Final processing: bindery, label, vault, reserves, etc.

6

The Frontlog part of the analysis• FAST CAT PROCESS WORKING AS IT SHOULD

• HOWEVER, FRONTLOG STILL GROWING!

7

8

9Frontlog analysis

What causes the Frontlog? Calculating the annual cost of the Frontlog Measuring the process

Arrival Rates Processing Capabilities

Workflow improvements Eliminating non-value-added activity

Multiple searches

Unnecessary packaging for shelving in the Frontlog Switching from a “push” to a “pull” system

10What has caused the Frontlog?Literature reviews

Materials: too much ordered; too many gifts

Staff: low staffing levels

Technology: we can order faster but not necessarily catalog faster

Administrative priorities (Decrees from on high)

Cataloging: obligations to professional standards; changes in cataloging rules; cataloging music is more complex than books

11What has caused the Frontlog?From our observations:

1. The decision to have a Frontlog; implemented without a time limit

2. Acquisitions

a. Acquisitions budget greater than cataloging budget

b. Difficult to manage proactively and in detail

c. Easy to become disconnected from the cataloging process, resulting in unbalanced pushing on the system

3. Gifts: unpredictable

Acquisitions

Cataloging process

inefficiencies

Not enough catalogers

12What has caused the Frontlog?From our observations:

4. We must maintain professional cataloging standards

5. Workflow inefficiencies within Tech Services

a. Acquisitions arrival rate unknown (see above)

b. Processing capability unknown

c. Redundant work being performed

6. Resource shortages within Tech Services

Acquisitions

Cataloging process

inefficiencies

Not enough catalogers

13Metrics needed for consistent performance

Key metrics that should be available at any time:

• How many items can Acquisitions process in [time period]?

• Number of titles ordered / received / outstanding / gifts

Firm; Approval; Standing orders

• How many items can be cataloged in [time period]?

• How many items cataloged vs shelved in the Frontlog?

• Staffing: academic calendar, reserves, FY deadlines, etc.; training to multiple tasks

14Understanding the inputs:Arrival rates and Order sizes

Fits Geometric Distributions(Consistent with queuing theory)

Approvals and Firms follow normal distributionStanding follows lognormal distribution after filtering out single-item orders

15Gathering the raw data:Calculating Acquisitions functions

Search OCLC for copy

Place orders

Receive orders

Invoice check-in process

Materials processing: Fast Cat or Frontlog

Property stamp

Barcode

Tattle tape

Scores and parts in envelopes

Process gift donations

16Gathering the raw data:Calculating Cataloging functions

Search OCLC for copy

Verify bibliographic record

Authority records: export existing or create original

Create bindery instructions

Check student work

Individual functions were timed

Percentages were calculated for time spent on various functions

A flowchart was mapped:

17Workflow Improvement:Mapping the Process

Before: After:

18Workflow Improvement: Revision

Revising the process map:

• Consolidated redundant steps

• Removed unnecessary steps

• Pooled resources

19What changed?

Student job descriptions were combined

Knowledgeable staff moved to the beginning of the receiving process (keeping materials from being added to the Frontlog)

Acquisitions invoice process became more automated, eliminating the need to create brief bibliographic records

Cataloging copy: full level or above accepted

Duplicate searches were removed from the process

Unnecessary authority records no longer created

Duplicate checking of work was eliminated

Performing Ensembles Librarian trained in copy cataloging

20Improved numbers

DLC/PCC 240

I-Level 3437

No record 196

Below I-level 630

Total 4503

21Workflow Improvement: ImplicationsWe need to: Revisit professional standards

Rewrite job descriptions

Temporary (student hourly) positions

Support staff

Retrain

Implement data collection and analysis

Maintain an integrated workflow

Acquisitions—Cataloging—Processing and bindery