We send 99% of our requests to our Acquisition's person via email. Our Acquisition's person prints off lists (Excel) of requests that library staff have created from the various department orders, then works with the lists rather than separate order slips. Any activity is indicated on these paper lists that are used if there are questions later. (We probably won't hold onto these lists for an extended period.)
Our library staff usually will check for duplicates before turning a request list in to the Acq person. The Acq person checks for duplicate items as well. If it an item is a replacement and it matches the item in the catalog exactly, the Acq person attaches the order record to the existing record. If not, she loads a new record from CatMe including order information which then loads to Innovative. In this way the appropriate information shows to our patrons on the OPAC. If she can't find a record, she creates a brief one in all caps, but of course this isn't optimum because the patron sees this record as well.
When an item comes in, the Acq person processes it, then turns it over to cataloging. We are able to use the loaded record most of the time. If the cataloger doesn't like the record that was loaded, we simply load or create one we like better and transfer the attached order record to it, before deleting the record we don't want. We do original cataloging or find a better record for the brief records created in Acquisitions.
This system is new - since going to Innovative, but it works very well here.
Theresa Labato wrote:
Hi,We've recently begun using the Acquisitions module and establishing the integrated relationship between the cataloging and acquisitions depts. We're experimenting with different approaches and workflows. I have several questions and would appreciate advice from users of the system. I'll begin with my first question. Presently we place our orders by first trying to locate a bib record from our network database. If a bib record is found that seems to match the order request, it is used for the order. The bib no. and order no. are written on the paper request slip. If the bib record isn't in the database, a brief record is typed. After the item is received, we search the OCLC database. It's at this time we decide if we want to use the original bib record or substitute another. After production, we export and upload the OCLC records to our network. Another approach we've been considering is searching OCLC first and downloading bib records that seem to match order requests. We still request shelflist cards from OCLC, but since we don't know if we'll be receiving everything we order or if we'll receive the same item, it seems premature to request cards in advance of the receipt of the items. I think the theory is that this would be a seamless approach in that the bib record used for ordering and cataloging would match the actual item received, etc. I'd appreciate hearing from people who use this approach----especially what they do when things aren't seamless (i.e. received item doesn't match bib record, order can't be filled, etc.) Thanks, Theresa S. Labato