As a reminder, in April of 1993, the Slavic language original cataloger resigned. This vacancy has had a distinct negative impact on cataloging of the Slavic language materials backlog that do not have bibliographical records in OCLC. We are in the midst of OSUL migration to INNOPAC, budget uncertainties and a continuing vacancy in the Slavic cataloger position.

In the summer of 1993, Professor Allan Wildman, History Department, and seven Slavic professors from different department specialized in various Slavic subject and languages proposed to review the Slavic backlog in the Cataloging Department at the Ohio State University Libraries. The purpose of reviewing the backlog was to eliminate the kind of materials that are not valuable for academic library.

The previous Slavic Cataloger had mentioned several times that the Slavic backlog contains many materials which are not important for researchers and scholars in general. Cataloging these unimportant materials is very expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, the Slavic backlog has over 25,000 titles (including monograph, serials, and microfilms) and we need more than one cataloger to catalog these materials.

The Slavic professors started to review the Slavic backlog in July 1993. They scheduled a regular time to review materials on Thursday of every week for an average of three hours. As a result of their work, about 8,000 titles were reviewed, 60% of them were marked "1" to be cataloged, and 40% were marked not to be cataloged. The Slavic professors hoped to see the books they selected available on the shelves and they felt that the Cataloging Department and the library should take serious actions to catalog these materials.

To assure the Slavic Department that their work in reviewing the backlog was not wasted, the Search Section immediately started to search these books which marked "1" to be cataloged by the Slavic professors. Since these material are very old, very few were found to have copy in the OCLC database.

All the above factors made us look for a solution to make these materials in the backlog available to researchers and scholars. From the several alternatives discussed, a decision was made to conduct a pilot project of outsourcing 100 Slavic titles from the backlog that needed only original cataloging. The goal of outsourcing these 100 books is to:

1) test the quality of records obtained by the vendors, using criteria such as adherence to national standards;

2) test the physical impact on materials sent to the vendor, especially on brittle books;

3) to estimate the staffing time required for managing the project and individual operations such as sending and receiving books, shelflisting and problems solving done in-house;

4) to examine issues involved in transporting materials;

5) to compare costs for each methods (catalog in-house or outsourcing);

6) and the potential for sending document surrogates for cataloging of on-site purchased cataloging;

Based on previous study on contract cataloging[1] OCLC TechPro was selected as the project vendor to catalog these 100 Slavic language titles. OCLC TechPro retains experienced personnel who know several languages and who can successfully manage the processing of OSUL's Slavic books.

The Slavic backlog contains several types of materials among them books, serials, and microfilms. We selected 100 titles from this backlog that need only original cataloging. However, for this pilot project, we did not select from the following categories:

a) deteriorating materials or ones that are in need of repair or binding;

b) serials (The Slavic serials backlog is very small, fewer than 100 serial titles in the Serial Section. Morris Jackson is cataloging these titles.);

c) microforms (many of the Slavic microforms located in room 030 have copy and can be processed by the Slavic copy cataloger.

2. Implementation:

The project manager contacted OCLC TechPro (Cynthia Whitacre, Manager, Technical Processing Section) to negotiate the contract and to obtain a price quote. OCLC TechPro requested from OSUL to file the "TechPro Information Request for Price Quote"[2]. Based on the information provided by OSUL, OCLC TechPro set up a price proposal[1] and sent it to OSUL for consideration. The project manager discussed the price proposal with Ichiko Morita, Head of Cataloging Department, and also with the Cataloging Policy Advisory Committee (CPAC), and the Cataloging Policy Board (CPB). There was agreement on the price proposal and encouragement to move forward with the pilot project. Also, I provided OCLC TechPro with details on OSUL's cataloging specifications for the Slavic books. These specifications are:

Original cataloging records should include the following cataloging elements:

1) Fixed fields:

Conf pub

Ctry

Dates

Dat tp

Desc a

Enc lvl I

Festschr

Lang

Mod rec

Source

2) Variable fields:

020 ISBN

040 Cataloging source

041 Languages

049 Local holdings (usually OSUU, but if the subject of the book is music, the location will be OSU,)

090 Locally assigned LC-type call number

100 Main entry heading, personal name

110 Main entry heading, corporate name

111 Main entry heading, conference or meeting name

130 Main entry heading, uniform title

240 Uniform title

245 Title statement

subfields: a, n, p, b, c.

250 Edition statement

subfields: a, b.

260 Imprint

subfields: a, b, c, e, f, g.

300 Physical description

subfields: a, b, c, e.

440 Series statement, Title (traced)

subfields: a, n, p, x, v.

490 Series statement, not traced or traced differently

subfields: a, x, v.

500 General note

502 Dissertation note

504 Bibliography note

505 Formatted contents note

590 (bound with note?)

6xx LC subject headings

7xx Added entries

830 Series added entry

910 Control-storage number composed of a location code, purchase order number and cataloger's initials and date of cataloging (e.g =pres6358&1s931030). If the control-storage number is not available (e.g. =pres46358), the 910 field will start with "&" plus the cataloger initials and date of cataloging (e.g. &1s931030). If the control-storage number is only 4 digit, please add "0" in front of the number (e.g. 04644). Also check the number against the checking list provided by OSUL. If the 049 is OSU, the 910 will be "=musx93939&1s931030)

949 Please add the volume numbers (e.g. #u v1 #u v2)

OCLC TechPro will do the following:

1) provide original cataloging for the Slavic books sent to them by OSUL;

2) produce the records and incorporate these records onto OSUL's tape;

3) write the call number in the books;

4) add "x" at the end of the call number (e.g. PN1998 #b .N28 1993X);

5) provide printouts of all records produced so that OSUL can revise these records and make necessary changes without having the cost of re-searching them on OCLC;

6) if the book is a translation, OCLC will add the translation number provided by OSUL;

7) if the book is by or about a literary author, OCLC will check OSUL's system to verify:

a) if author number is already established in LCS, OCLC will use this number;

b) if not, OCLC will establish an author number according to OSUL practice;

8) if the book is an adaptation, part, etc., OCLC will follow OSUL's practice as provided by OSUL. Since this is only a pilot project, OCLC TechPro has agreed to do this without the binding of an official contract. Instead, a document of agreement was sent to OSUL to sign[2]. Also, a purchase order number at the OSUL Business Office was established, so OSUL can pay the bill when it arrives from OCLC TechPro. (Karen Carroll, Business Services Manager, is the contact person for billing.)

3. Preparing the pilot project to be sent to OCLC TechPro:

Three people from the Cataloging Department were involved in the selection of the Slavic books from the backlog (Anna Batchev, the Slavic Copy Cataloger; Tania Smorodinskaya, Slavic GAA on special contract; and myself). The selection was randomly done. However, we tried to avoid the deteriorating materials.

After selecting 100 titles, Tania searched them in OCLC to make sure that we do not send books that already have copy. Then, we searched all 100 books against LCS to discharge them from the backlog and charge to the Monographic Section. This also served as an inventory list, one for OCLC TechPro and another for OSUL. The purpose of having these inventory lists is, for both sides, to be able to review the books when they arrive from OCLC TechPro and to make sure that nothing is lost.

Brian Daher helped in packing the books and on October 27, 1993, Cynthia Whitacre come to OSUL to pick the books up. (Please note that if we contract the Slavic books to OCLC TechPro, in the future it will be our responsibility to send the books to OCLC TechPro). On November 29, 1993, Brian Daher went to OCLC TechPro to pick up the cataloged books. I did not experience any problems in sending and receiving the books back.

II. Test the quality of Slavic records obtained by the vendors:

During the process of cataloging by OCLC TechPro, I worked on establishing criteria for evaluating the cataloged books[3]. These criteria are based on applying the national standards, applying OSUL's local practices in cataloging, and taking into consideration the OSUL's users' needs. In my opinion as a cataloger, adherence to these criteria ensures the quality of the bibliographic record. There was a wide discussion of these criteria by the Cataloging Management Team, Cataloging Policy Board (CPB), and catalogers. I used e-mail to send the evaluation criteria to all the catalogers. Some people responded, such as Cataloging Management Team (CMT), and some catalogers made very substantial comments and additions.

I divided the evaluation processing into three parts. These three parts cover all the fields in the bibliographic records. Each part was evaluated by a different level of personnel:

a. Checking the subject analysis: Professors Allan Wildman and Matthew Schwonek from the Slavic Center at OSU;

b. Checking the descriptive cataloging and transliteration: Anna Batchev and Tania Smorodinskaya from the Copy Cataloging Section;

c. Checking the access points (090, 1xx, 6xx, and 7xx) and all authority work: catalogers from the Monographic Section (Jose Dias, Jim Murphy, Joseph Galron, and Cary Daniel);

All the above participants wrote their comments on each record and signed the record. After this thorough evaluation process, Brian Daher created a spreadsheet which included all of the evaluation criteria and a box for each book[3]. Then, each error in every record was recorded.

After that, a grading scale for evaluating the quality was established. According to this scale, any record which was rated below 90% was deemed unacceptable in terms of quality. The scale as shown below shows the following ratings: Much worse than average (MWA), Worse than average(WA), Average(A), Better than average(BA), Much better than average(MBA), Not acceptable (NA):

90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100%

*-------*------*------*------*------*

MWA WA A BA MBA

1. Error analysis

An analysis was then made of the types of errors that were made. The following charts divide the errors into ones that are considered to be non-critical and those that are critical. Unless otherwise indicated the percentages are based on 93 records since copy was found by OCLC for 7 of the books sent (one of the 7 copies found was entered after we searched the books and sent them to OCLC; the remaining 6 titles were missed during search).

Non critical errors

Category Number of Error Percentage and

quality scale

Fixed Field:

Source: none 0 MBA

Conf pub none 0 MBA

Desc: none 0 MBA

Cont: not applicable 0

Enc lvl: none 0 MBA

Festchr: none 0 MBA

Govt. pub: not applicable 0

Illus: not applicable 0

Index not applicable 0

Int lvl: none 0 MBA

m/f/b not applicable 0

f/b not applicable 0

Mod rec: none 0 MBA

Typos, non-indexed fields:

245 subfield b: 4 out of 45 8.88% MWA

245 subfield c: 7 out of 85 8.23% MWA

260: 2 2.15% BA

300: none 0 MBA

500: none 0 MBA

Punctuation that does not

affect search: 1 1.97% MBA

Diacritic that does not

affect the search: 12 12.90% NA

Choice of the main entry: none 0 MBA

504 v. 500 for bib. note: none 0 MBA

500 note for translation: 14 out of 19 73.68% NA

Added x to the call number:

Non-literary work: none 0 MBA

Literary work not applicable 0 MBA

Shelflisting fit:

Non-literary work 5 out of 60 8.33% MWA

Subject cutter none 0 MBA

Critical errors

Category Number of Errors Percentage and

quality scale

Fixed field:

Lang none 0 MBA

Ctry 3 3.22% BA

Bib.lvl none 0 MBA

Dat tp none 0 MBA

Tagging in variable field 2 2.15% BA

Subject analysis none 0 MBA

Typos in access points

1xx none 0 MBA

240 1 out of 11 9.09% MWA

245 3 3.22% BA

505 none 0 MBA

6xx none 0 MBA

7xx none 0 MBA

8xx none 0 MBA

Transliteration errors

1xx none 0 MBA

240 none 0 MBA

245 4 4.30% A

4xx none 0 MBA

505 none 0 MBA

6xx none 0 MBA

7xx none 0 MBA

Missing access points

1xx none 0 MBA

240 9 out of 20 40% NA

245 none 0 MBA

4xx 1 out of 13 7.69% WA

6xx 2 2.15% BA

7xx 3 3.33% BA

Mandatory fields omitted 1 1.07% MBA

Duplicating OCLC records none 0 MBA

Following OSUL practices:

No translation number 3 out of 19 15.78% NA

Adaptation, part, number not applicable 0

Criticism number added not applicable 0

Literary work number

checked on LCS 4 out of 33 12.12% NA

Biographical number added not applicable 0

Checking OCLC Authority File

1xx yes 0 MBA

240 yes 0 MBA

4xx yes 0 MBA

6xx not applicable 0 MBA

7xx yes 0 MBA

If not, was heading established correctly

1xx yes 0 MBA

240 yes 0 MBA

4xx yes 0 MBA

6xx yes 0 MBA

7xx yes 0 MBA

2. Result of analysis by error type:

General Statement:

Out of 93 records evaluated, 47 were absolutely correct and 46 had at least one or more errors. For example, one record had two critical errors; one was a typo in the 505 field, and another was missing the 240 field. Another record had the country code wrong and typos in the 245 field. Another record had an error in tagging the subject heading and was missing the 710 field as an important access field. All of these errors will impact searching the bibliographic record on OSUL's online system.

Non critical errors:

According to the evaluation criteria and the quality scale, the highest percentage of non-critical errors occurred in the 500 notes for translations which is below the quality level. In reviewing the records, we were able to determine the original language of the text being translated for some works. Others would require time to search additional bibliographical sources in order to determine the original language. The second highest percentage of errors were typos in subfields b and c of the 245 field. According to the quality scale, these typos are worse than average. The third most common non-critical error was missing or misplaced diacritic.

Critical errors occurred in the following categories:

1) Additional subject headings needed. In two records, the subject analyst felt that another subject heading was needed on each record in order to reflect the content of the books.

2) Additional access points needed. One record included a 500 note which named a journal title. This information is important and should have been added as an access point in the 730 field. Another record needed an access point to be made for a publisher. This is a subjective judgement made by the cataloger who determines what information is important to include for OSUL.

3) Uniform title field (240) lacking. Obtaining the title of the original text of a translation to include in the 240 field depends on several factors which are: the availability of the original text in one of the bibliographical sources, the cataloger's time to check these sources, and the difficulties of the language.

4) Checking LCS for cuttering of a literary work. Errors could easily happen if a cataloger does not file the temporary shelflist slip immediately after cataloging or if the shelflist is unavailable. (Note that using LCS for shelflisting is sometimes inaccurate, so we use the shelflist to cutter.)

5) Missing the translation numbers. For OSUL is very important to have the translation number added to the call number so that the original books and that translated one can be shelved together (this is one of the areas where a decision must be made in the future if we would accept the call number the way it is presented in the OCLC record.)

6) Typos in 240 fields. Although this happened only in one record, it is very important to have it right since it is an access field.

III. Physical Impact on Materials Sent to the Vendors:

The books were very well handled by both sides, OCLC TechPro and OSUL. The idea of sending surrogates (i.e., title pages) is not practical because whomever does the Cataloging needs the physical piece to obtain other information not available on the title page.

IV. Analysis of the cost of contract cataloging v. the cost of hiring a Slavic cataloger:

A) Analysis of OCLC TechPro's cost per title:

For the 100 titles we sent to OCLC TechPro, seven books were found to already have copy in OCLC. These seven books were not processed by OCLC; however, they made a printout of the records and returned them to OSUL to be processed locally. Hence, these books will not be part of the cost analysis. I will estimate the cost by OCLC TechPro based on the 93 books which were processed.

Four factors must be considered when calculating the cataloging cost done by OCLC TechPro:

1) OCLC cost for cataloging the 93 original titles

2) The internal (hidden) cost for OSUL to prepare the books to be sent to OCLC TechPro

3) Total original cataloging cost, and

4) Cost per an original title

1) OCLC cost for cataloging the 93 titles = $ 2,785.75

Details OCLC TechPro's price per book:

Original cataloging for literary work (Roman) $ 25.00

Original cataloging for literary work (Cyrillic) $ 27.50 Original cataloging for non-literary work (Roman) $ 27.50

Original cataloging for non-literary work (Cyrillic) $ 30.00

2) The internal (hidden) cataloging cost for OSUL:

There are internal (hidden) costs for OSUL to prepare these books to be sent to OCLC TechPro[4]. These hidden costs include the following:

* Retrieving the books from the backlog:

1 hour of copy cataloger time = 1 x $12.00 = $12.00

* Searching the 100 titles in OCLC:

5 hours of GAA time = 5 x $7.00 = $35.00

* Cost for in-house searching[4]:

100 titles x 30 cents = $30.00

* Searching LCS to discharge books from the backlog and charge to the Monograph Section and the creation of two inventory lists; one to go with the books to OCLC TechPro and the other to stay in the contract cataloging file in OSUL. (Both lists are for reviewing the books when they go out and come in.):

3 hours of student time = 3 x $4.95 = $14.85

* Packing the books in boxes:

2 hours of student time = 2 x $4.95 = $9.90

* Sending the books to OCLC TechPro[5]:

1 hour of staff time = 1 x $12.00 = $12.00

* Reviewing the returned books against the OSUL inventory list and checking the books in OSUL local system to make sure that every book has been returned and is in the system (LCS):

4 hours of student time = 4 x $4.95 = $19.80

* Reviewing the records (the descriptive part):

3 hours by the copy cataloger = 3 x $12 = $36.00

* Consultation:

3 hours by the Slavic GAA = 3 x $7 = $21.00

* Reviewing the access points and checking authority

4 hours by original catalogers = 4 x $18 = $72.00

* Managing the project, solving problems, and answering questions (locally or with OCLC TechPro):

10 hours of faculty time = 10 x $18 = $180.00

Total hidden cost is = = $442.55

3) Total cataloging cost:

If we add the hidden cost to the total cost of cataloging of the Slavic books by OCLC TechPro, the result will be:

OCLC TechPro cost + the Hidden cost

$2,785.75 + $442.55 = $3,228.30

4) The cost by OCLC TechPro per title:

$3,228.30 divided by 93 books = $34.71

B) Cost analysis of cataloging done by hiring a Slavic catalogers at OSUL.

(Please note that in analyzing the cost required to employ a full time original cataloger, I am doing this from the point of view of total cost to the university rather than in terms of the cataloging production and efficiency. This means that I included the 20% unassigned time; vacation; sick leave; service to committees; administrative duties; attendance of local meetings; attendance of professional meetings, conferences, etc.)

Seven factors must be considered when calculating cataloging costs:

1) the amount of original cataloging done in one year;

2) the annual salary of the Slavic cataloger;

3) the annual credit received from OCLC for inputting original cataloging to the OCLC database;

4) the net costs of doing cataloging in-house;

5) the costs of original cataloging;

6) supporting costs for doing cataloging in-house; and

7) net cost for original cataloging per title.

1. Amount of original cataloging done in one year:

Gathering statistics:

There are two years of statistics available from the previous Slavic cataloger (1991 and 1992.) The statistics were incomplete (1991 was missing one month) and in 1992 the Slavic Cataloger was acting head of the Monographic Cataloging section for six months. I used the incomplete 1991 production statistics of the Slavic language cataloger and averaged all remaining months to compensate for the missing month. I then divided the statistics into the types of cataloging done:

original cataloging assigning call # Copy cataloging

lock and upgrade

382 book 273 book 102 book

2. Annual salary of the Slavic cataloger:

The annual salary of a cataloger = $28,008.00

University benefits per year = $ 5,601.60

------------

Total = $33,609.60

(Advertising, interviewing and hiring costs were not considered because of their one-time nature.)

3. Annual credit received from OCLC for inputting original records:

$3.50 x 382 titles = $ 1,337.00

4. Net cost = $33,609.60 - $1,337.00 = $ 32,272.60

5. Costs of original cataloging:

To estimate the cost per original cataloging record, the following steps were taken:

* The assumption was made that if 65%[5] of a cataloger's time is spent cataloging original titles, the cost for original cataloging per year would be:

the total annual salary multiplied by 65%

$32,272.60 multiplied by 65% = $ 20,977.19

6. Supporting costs for doing only original cataloging in-house:

These supporting costs will not include OCLC terminal costs, OCLC connect time costs, shelflist card production cost, maintaining the bibliographical records, authority works, and shipment cost of the shelflist cards.

* Getting the books from the backlog:

4 hours of student time = 4 x $4.95 = $ 19.80

* Searching the 382 titles in OCLC in the Search Section:

16 hours of student time = 16 x $4.95 = $ 79.20

* Searching the 382 titles in OCLC in the Monograph Section:

11 hours of Catalogers' time = 11 x $17 = $ 187.00

* OCLC cost for in-house searching in Search Section:

382 titles x 30 cents = $ 114.60

* OCLC cost for in-house searching in Monograph Section:

382 titles x 30 cents = $ 114.60

* Searching LCS to discharge books from Search Section and charge to Monograph Section:

5 hours of student time = 5 x $4.95 = $ 24.75

Total supporting cost = $ 535.95

7. Net cost for original cataloging per title:

Costs of original cataloging + hidden cost

$20,977.19 + 535.95 = $ 21,513.14

If we divide the $21,513.14 by the 382 Slavic original books cataloged in 1991: = $ 56.32

V. SUMMARY OF COST ANALYSIS:

If we assume that OCLC TechPro had cataloged the same 382 books that the Slavic language cataloger cataloged in 1991, what would be the OCLC's cost and the cost if the OSUL decided to catalog language backlog in-house. In the following chart is the detailed cost comparison between outsourcing the original cataloging to OCLC TechPro and cataloging in-house.

Based on the cost analysis of original cataloging in this chart, the bottom line figure for performing original cataloging by OCLC TechPro is $31.64 per title, as compared to $56.32 by OSUL.

VI. Conclusion:

In my conclusion, I will emphasize three aspects of contract cataloging v. hiring a Slavic cataloger. First: Why does OCLC cost less per title, and why it costs more in OSUL?. Second: Does the quality of the record obtained by OCLC compare to those produced by OSUL? Third: Other considerations which include, What does OSU stand to lose if we have fewer in-house catalogers?

1) You will see by the following that it is clear that OCLC Techpro costs less than hiring a Slavic original cataloger. I will explain why OCLC costs are less and why it costs more for OSUL to perform original cataloging:

OCLC

a) Their focus is only on cataloging: there is no involvement in submitting name authority records to NACO; less time is spent on searching bibliographical sources, which support cataloging, beyond OCLC database.

b) They have greater flexibility in moving personnel according to their need.

c) Their workflow is more efficient. Since they must keep current with their workflow because of specific deadlines for their customers, they do not encounter the problems and expense involved in managing a backlog.

d) Keeping current with and distributing information about cataloging rules takes less time with fewer people.

e) Original cataloging is mostly done by experienced paraprofessionals who generally are employed at salaries that are lower than those of professionals.

f) They are mostly cataloging according to the customer's specifications, no time is spent in negotiating changes in procedures, or in decision-making.

OSUL

a) Professional original catalogers spend approximately 75% of their time doing cataloging in general (including original cataloging, assigning call numbers, lock and upgrade, and enhance records) and 25% is spent on many other required activities which is also part of their job. These other activities include: teaching UVC; conducting LCS workshops; serving on committees, participation in national activities such as NACO, ALA conferences, etc.. From this 75% time spent on cataloging in general, 65% is spend doing only original cataloging and 35% is spent on assigning call numbers, subject headings, etc.

b) The complexity of the workflow and the difficulty of moving materials from one room to another and from one person to another creates redundancy of several steps, and wastes time in terms of problem-solving or answering questions.

c) The shortage of equipment in the Cataloging Department.

d) OSUL depends on professional staff to perform only original cataloging which makes the cost of original cataloging very high.

e) The organization of copy catalogers and original catalogers into separate sections has the effect of focusing each section's efforts on the work done its section, thus inhibiting efforts to engage in team cataloging and to streamline the workflows across sections. This is true especially for language materials.

f) If OSUL considers handling more original cataloging utilizing the staff expertise and students assistants with greater focus in cataloging rather than responsibilities, OSUL will lower the original cataloging costs.

2) In terms of quality of records obtained by OCLC Techpro, the records produced by OCLC TechPro are not below the national standard but not as high quality as OSU's. The type of errors that I indicated in this report could have happened with any professional cataloger. However, the difference between our cataloging at OSU and OCLC's is that we pay close attention to many details related to national standards, resulting in very high quality records that other libraries use without question nor modification. For instance, when we input a special language record into OCLC, the reputation of the cataloger is at stake and more pride and care is put into this activity.

Overall, if OSUL decided to contract the Slavic backlog to OCLC TechPro, there should be an emphasis for OCLC TechPro to be very careful in describing an item, especially during the typing of access points and in following OSUL local practices. Also, there should be an emphasis for OSUL to be very careful in interpreting OCLC Techpro's contract and in describing their cataloging specifications.

3) Thirdly, in terms of what OSU stands to lose if cataloging is outsourced, there are three major considerations.

a) There are many activities not related to original cataloging. They also assign call numbers, subject headings and act as problem-solvers. These activities will need to be delegated to another person or area in the department, displacing some of what that person presently does, and will require a review of priorities.

b) By not having a Slavic Cataloger faculty member, the committee work they would have participated in will be the responsibility of someone else. We also will lose representation at the national levels and may miss participating in special projects that could benefit the Libraries. We will not have NACO participation in this area. In essence, we will lose our connection with current Slavic issues by not being represented by our faculty member.

c) We will have one less faculty member that can participate in teaching UVC classes or performing other faculty duties and responsibilities.

VII. Appendices

A. Cost analysis for the Slavic original cataloging without the 20% research and the 5% service time:

The assumption is made here that if OSUL hired an M.L.S. cataloger to perform strictly original cataloging at the same level of the faculty member's salary, (with sick leave/vacation benefits but without u.p.t and without service obligations), what would be the costs of such an individual's time?

Seven factors have to be considered when we calculate the cataloging costs:

1) The amount of original cataloging done in one year;

2) the annual salary of the Slavic cataloger;

3) the annual credit received from OCLC for inputting original records to OCLC database;

4) net cost;

5) the cost for uncataloging time;

6) support cost for doing original cataloging in-house; and

7) the cost per title.

1. The amount of original cataloging done in one year:

original cataloging assigning call # Copy cataloging

lock and upgrade

382 book 273 book 102 book

2) The annual salary of the Slavic cataloger:

The annual salary of the Slavic cataloger = $28,008.00

The university benefits = $ 5,601.60

-----------

Total $33,609.60

(Advertising, interviewing and hiring costs were not considered because of their one-time nature.)

3. Credit received from OCLC for inputting original records:

$3.50 x 382 titles(1991) = $ 1,337.00

4. Net cost = $33,609.60 - $1,337.00 = $32,272.60

5. The annual cost for the uncataloging time:

a) the annual working hours of the Slavic language original cataloger in 1991

52 weeks x 5 days= 260 days

b) non cataloging activities:

upt= 52 days (20%) ($6,454.52)

5% service = 13 days (5%) ($1,613.63) -----------------------------

total 65 days (25%) ($8.068.15)

c) net cataloging cost

Total cataloger salary - total uncataloging time

$32,272.60 - $8,068.15 = $24,204.45

6) Supporting costs for doing original cataloging in-house: $535.95

7) Cost per original title:

If the catalogers are spending 25% of their time performing non-cataloging activities such as u.p.t. and service; and they are spending 75% of their time doing cataloging in general (which includes original cataloging, assigning call numbers, lock and upgrade, and enhance records), the assumption is made that 65% of the 75% cataloging time is spent doing only original cataloging.

65% of net cataloging cost ($24.204.45) is: = $15,732.89

$15,732.89 + $535.95 (support cost) = $16,268.84

$16,268.84 divided by 382 books = $42.58

B. Cost analysis of original cataloging for four language catalogers and four language materials with the fringe benefits:

1. Number of original cataloging done in one year:

Gathering statistics:

I gathered the 1991 production statistics of a four language catalogers. In this year, the catalogers were participating very heavily in the training for submitting the names to LC name authority file. This activity required passing a quality review and submitting certain numbers of names. Also, it required a considerable amount of the catalogers' time.

I divided the statistics into the types of cataloging done:

original cataloging assigning call # lock and upgrade

1240 book 1987 book 1730 book

2. Annual salary of a four language catalogers:

The annual salary of four language catalogers = $111,684.00

University benefits per year = $ 22,336.80

---------------

Total = $134,020.80

(Advertising, interviewing and hiring costs were not considered because of their one-time nature.)

3. Credit received from OCLC for inputting original records:

$3.50 x 1240(1991) = $ 4,340.00

4. Net cost= $134.020.80 - $4,340 = $ 129,680.80

5. Costs for original cataloging:

To estimate the cost per an original cataloging record, the following steps were taken:

! The assumption was made that if 60%[6] of a cataloger's time is spent cataloging original titles, the cost for original cataloging per year would be:

the total annual salary multiplied by 60%:

$129,680.80 multiplied by 60% = $ 77,808.48

6. Supporting costs for doing original cataloging in-house:

! Getting the books from the backlog:

15.5 hours of student time = 15.5 x $4.95 = $ 76.72

! Searching the 1240 titles in OCLC in the Search Section:

21 hours of student time = 21 x $4.95 = $ 103.95

! Searching the 1240 titles in OCLC in the Monograph Section:

15.5 hours of the Catalogers' time 15.5 x $17 = $ 263.50

! OCLC cost for in-house searching in Search Section:

1240 titles x .30 = $ 372.00

! OCLC cost for in-house searching in Monograph Section:

1240 titles x .30 = $ 372.00

! Searching LCS to discharge books from Search Section and charge to Monograph Section:

15.5 hours of student time = 15.5 x $4.95 = $ 76.72

Total supporting cost = $ 1,264.89

7. Net cost for original cataloging per title:

Costs of original cataloging + Hidden cost

$ 77,808.80 + $ 1,264.89 = $ 79.073.37

Divide the $797,073.37 by 1,240 books = $ 63.76

C. Cost analysis of doing original cataloging by four language catalogers without the 20% research and the 5% service:

Seven factors have to be considered when we calculate the cataloging costs:

1) the number of original cataloging done in one year;

2) the annual cost that the library and the University pay the cataloger to do the job;

3) the annual credit received from OCLC for inputting original records;

4) net cost;

5) the costs for uncataloging time;

6) supporting costs of doing original cataloging in-house; and

7) the cost per title.

1. Number of original cataloging done in one year:

original cataloging assigning call # lock and upgrade

1240 book 1987 book 1730 book

2. The annual salary of the four language original catalogers:

The annual salary of four language catalogers is = $ 111,684

University benefits per year is = $ 22,336.80

-------------- -Total = $ 134,020.80

(Advertising, interviewing and hiring costs were not considered because of their one-time nature.)

3. Credit received from OCLC for inputting original records:

$3.50 x 1240(1991) = $ 4,340.00

4. Net cost= $134,020.8 - $4,340 = $ 129,680.80

5. The annual cost of the uncataloging time:

a) the annual working hours for four language original catalogers in 1991

52 weeks x 4 catalogers= 208 weeks

208 weeks x 5 days a week= 1040 days

b) non cataloging activities:

upt = 52 days x 4 = 208 days (20%) ($25,936.16)

5% service 52 days (5%) ($6,484.04) -----------------------------

total uncataloging time 260 days (25%) ($32,420.20)

c) Net cataloging cost:

Total catalogers salary - total uncataloging cost

$ 129,680.80 - $ 32,420.20 $ 97,260.60

6) Supporting cost for original cataloging: = $ 1,264,89

7) Cost per an original title:

If the catalogers are spending 25% of their time performing non-cataloging activities such as u.p.t. and service; and they are spending 75% of their time doing cataloging in general (which includes original cataloging, assigning call numbers, lock and upgrade, and enhance records), the assumption is made that 60% of the 75% cataloging time is spent doing only original cataloging.

60% of net cataloging cost ($97,260.60) = $ 58,356.36

Total cost of original cat.= 58,356.36 + 1,264.89 = $ 59,621.25

Cost per original record=

$59,621.25 divided by 1240 original books = $ 48.08

D. Discussion of Slavic Contract Cataloging Pilot Project with Gay Dannelly, Jared Ingersoll, Jennifer Younger and Magda El-Sherbini

Based on the discussion on March 8, 1994, it was recommended that if we contract the Slavic backlog to OCLC TechPro, it should be mentioned that OCLC should improve their error rate in transliterations and pay particular attention when placing diacritics.

Uniform titles as an access point is very important to OSUL patrons. OCLC TechPro should search the OCLC database to find the original record and use that as a basis for creating a new record. This will be very useful, especially for translated materials because the original record already has a call number and subject heading. A simple search by author could pick up the translation record.

It was also recommended that for OSUL's measure of quality of OCLC TechPro records involving original cataloging, that for non-critical errors, the error rate above 90 percent was acceptable. However, for critical errors, the measure of quality should increase to 95 percent.

Other Appendices

Appendix D

2) Form 1: TechPro Information Request for Price Quote

Appendix D

3) Form 2: OCLC TechPro Service Price Proposal

Appendix D

4) Document of Agreement

Appendix D

5) Criteria for evaluation

Appendix D

6) Evaluation Spreadsheet

[1] See Form 2, Appendix D

[2] See document, Appendix D

[3] See the evaluation spreadsheet, Appendix D

[4]. Assuming that every book was searched in OCLC only one time using one search strategy.

[5]. This step will done by US parcel or UPS

[1].. See in house report on Cataloging alternatives: an investigation of contract cataloging, cooperative cataloging, and the use of temporary help. By M. El-Sherbini, M. Harris, M. Donovan, and M. Kercher.

[2]. See Form 1, Appendix D

[3]. See Criteria of the evaluation, Appendix D

[4].. Please note that the hidden costs in this project were estimated and based on the actual work. the catalogers and staff costs were based on the salaries and benefits that the university pays per hour. I did not include in the hidden cost the maintaining the bibliographical records, and the authority work.

[5].. The 65% could be varied from one cataloger to another based on the total number of titles cataloged in one year and the ratio of original cataloging to the other cataloging activities such as assigning call number and subject heading.

[6].. Please note that this assumption will be varied from one language cataloger to another depends on the ratio of original cataloging to the other cataloging activities done in this year, such as assigning call number, subject headings, and lock and upgrade records.

Back to Internal Reports

Back to Cataloging Department Homepage

This site is best viewed with 1024 x 768 monitor resolution with high or true color settings. If you have questions or comments about any portion of this site or need the information in an alternative format, please contact Henry Griffy at griffy.2@osu.edu, or (614) 292-6314.

Technical Services Home |

The Ohio State University

www.osu.edu

Non critical errors