- Email: [email protected]
Time logs for searchers: How useful?
Library Acquisitions: Practiceand Theory, Vol. 2, pp. II-83 (1978). Pergamon Press. Printed in the U.S.A.
0364-6408/78/020077-07$02.00/0 Copyright 0 1978 Pergamon Press
TIME LOGS FOR SEARCHERS: HOW USEFUL? JANET L. FLOWERS Head, Bibliographic Searching Section Wilson Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
ABSTRACT The Bibliographic Searching Section at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill studied its operation through the use of time logs. The six searchers recorded their daily activities from September through December 197% Useful management data about search categories, average search times, and productive time available was obtained It ws used as the nucleus for a justification requesting additional staff and stimulated further evaluation of policies and procedures.
The searching unit in a large research library can be a complex, sophisticated operation presenting numerous management challenges. Those responsible for pre-order searching may have to deal with dramatic fluctuations in the flow of orders received. As the completeness and accuracy of the order requests submitted can vary considerably, so may the time needed to correct, complete, and clarify the requests. In addition, supervisors are often unable to observe the staff performing the verification since they must consult files and tools located outside the immediate work area. As one surveys library literature seeking information about how to deal with these issues, one becomes increasingly aware of the need for more documentation about the time actually required for searching. Many forces interact in the searching process, so one must carefully observe the activity to assess its efficiency. A supervisor must know the nature of the work to be done, the time available to perform it, and the time required in order to reliably predict, measure, and evaluate his section’s performance. In the past, the effective management of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Searching Section has been hindered by insufficient information about the various categories of requests received, the time required to search titles in each category and the hours actually spent searching. For these reasons, the section decided to study its operation using time logs; in August 1977, a log was designed which could provide the desired information (Figure 1). The Categories-Rush Search, Regular Search, Book Search, Meetings, and Other-were chosen to describe the activities in which the searcher could be involved. The definitions for the search categories were derived from established sorting procedures. Rush orders include out-of-print titles being offered by an antiquarian dealer, titles needed immediately, quotes from dealers, and confirming orders. Regular orders are sorted on the basis of copy, series, and country of
77
78
JANETL.FLOWERS
FIGURE 1 Searcher’s Time Logs UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL BIBLIOGRAPHIC SEARCEING SECTION ACQUISITIONS DEPARTMENT SEARCHER'S ACTIVITY RECORD Week Ending
Name (Searcher)
OTHER
O-15 15-30 30-45 45-60
minutes minutes minutes minutes
= .25 = .50 = .75 = 1.00
79
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
publication. Book search occurs in three cases-monographic series received on standing order, approval plans, and search on arrival to complete an abbreviated pre-order search. “Other” was for those activities which were not purely searching. The searchers were instructed to list here such projects and assignments as training students to use the computer terminal, sorting of orders received, reserving out-of-print titles, compiling statistics, updating manuals, and drawing flow charts of search sequences. The six searchers recorded their activities on the time logs from September through December 1977. The individual weekly logs were collected and tallied at the end of each month. A final report for the four-month period was compiled in January 1978. Although the study was not scrupulously controlled, the searchers were conscientious in their recordkeeping. The large quantity of data obtained made the calculations a difficult and time-consuming task. Fortunately, some useful management data was obtained. First, we gained a more precise record of the work to be done by our section. Table 1 records the number of requests received in each category. Knowing the percentages is important because a major change in any of them can affect not only our work load but our workjlow as well, which has implications for staffing. This breakdown served as a useful reminder to us that, while regular
Total Orders/Books
TABLE 1 Searched and Percentages
for Each Search Category
Search Categories Rush Search Current/Previous Retrospective Total
Year
Regular Search Copy, no series Copy, series U.S. trade, without copy Other, without copy Problems, sets, serials Total Book Search Monographs classed separately (rec’d on Standing Order) University Press titles rec’d on Approval Search on Arrival (Follow-up Pm-Order Problems) Search on Arrival (Completion of Abbreviated or No Pre-Order Search) Total NOTE: 13,929 orders/books
were searched during the four month period.
Total Orders/ Books Searched
Percentage Searched
430 1,351 1.781
3.1 9.7 12.8
4,918 2,508 790 1,420 1,129 10,765
35.3 18.0 5.7 10.2 8.1 77.3
535 675 71
3.8 4.9 0.5
102
0.7
1,383
9.9
JANET L. FLOWERS
80
TABLE 2 Hours Available, Worked, Spent Searching Hours Worked
Category Rush, Regular, Book Search
230.00 600.50 103.50
Meetings/Committee Work Other (section related) Other (library related)
3,23 1.OO
Total Hours Worked
NOTE: During the four month period studied, the six searchers were paid for 4,176 hours.
TABLE 3 Average Times to Search Order/Book
in Each Category Average Number of Minutes per Order
Category Rush Search Current/Previous Retrospective
Year
14.5 19.4
Regular Search Copy, no series Copy, series U.S. trade, without copy Other, without copy Problems, sets, serials
3.8 8.0 11.7 11.9 22.0
Book Search Monographs classed separately (rec’d on Standing Order) University Press titles Received on Approval Search on Arrival (Follow-up Pre-Order Problems) Search on Arrival (Completion of Abbreviated or no Pre-Order Search)
14.2 5.9 25.8 19.1
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
81
orders comprise the largest percentage of our search, the percentage of rush and book searches is significant. Secondly, we learned exactly how much time was available to perform the searching. Due to standard leave benefits, it must be assumed that each searcher gets paid for many non-working hours. Table 2 accounts for the searchers’ time during the study. For the four-month period, the six searchers worked 3,231 hours which was only 77.4% of the salaried hours. The logs aho revealed that of the hours worked, 2,297 hours were spent searching, i.e., 71% of working hours. This means that only 55% of the salaried hours were spent searching! Information like this is invaluable, for as Doris Carson stated in her description of a similar study of catalogers’ “any accurate estimate or equitable judgment of. . . performance must take into productivity, account the time spent in activities which erode . . . productive time.“’ Thirdly, we determined the average time required to search a title in each category. Initial reaction to these times, shown in Table 3, might be one of shock; naturally, they invite interpretation. As this paper deals more with the methodology than the results of the study, the figures themselves will not be discussed, but the background information which follows should explain at least the major elements that might cause these to be high. The effects of work flow and staff assignments were significant. Rush orders and book search are handled exclusively by the searchers, whereas regular orders are not; therefore, the time for the preliminary searching by the student assistants must be added to give a complete account of the time required for regular orders. This preliminary search (order file, catalog by title for older titles, and SOLINET terminal for appropriate titles) was not studied; however, approximately five minutes added to the average time for each regular order is a reasonable estimate. The processing of each search category must also be considered. Rush orders are dealt with individually, whereas regular orders are grouped for efficiency of search. Our long-held assumption that the absence of copy or the presence of a series increases the time required to search an order was substantiated by the data. Variation in the steps performed for each search category also contributes to the time differences. For example, retrospective rush orders are normally searched in the National Union Gztalog, a most unusual step for the other categories. As this involves the photocopying of the record found, it can be quite time-consuming, especially when the photocopier is not functioning well. Since the material has already been received, book search does not require the same steps as pm-order search. While interesting, the average times derived from this study should not be regarded as standards. They apply only to a specific situation at a particular time. Such local factors as depth and extent of searching performed, location of fdes and tools, as well as the nature of the orders/books searched would influence the average times at other institutions. The definitions of categories as well as the methods of calculation and computation would also affect the averages. The information gathered from such a study can enable one to predict a unit’s ability to respond to an increased work load. At UNC-CH, unlike many other libraries, the book budget has increased recently. In addition to a heavier work load, functions within the searching section have changed dramatically. Pre-order searching on the terminal became standard practice almost immediately after the library joined SOLINET in 1975. This has had profound effects upon work flow, training, scheduling, and search sequences. New approval plans have resulted in the need for post-receipt search procedures. The trend toward greater staff participation in committee work, while providing job enrichment, has naturally decreased work time actually spent in searching as well as complicated the management of the section. As a result of the need to adapt to these changes, alternatives such as the addition of temporary staff, the use of more student hours, and short cuts in searching sequences were tried. Even after these measures, we were still having difficulty meeting our responsibilities. During February, 1978,
82
JANET L. F&a&,&RS
Number of Orders/Books
TABLE 4 Searched, Time Spent and Experience by Individual
Searcher
Searcher A
B
C
D
E
F
236 1058 20 1314
235 548 586 1369
221 2050 3 2274
201 2755 11 2967
512 2421 38 2971
376 1933 725 3034
Search Category Rush Regular Book Search Total Hours Spent Searching Hours Worked Experience at Beginning of Study
380.00 511.00
335.75 522.50
490.75 548.50
280.25 583.25
14 mo.
2 yrs.
1 mo.
6 yrs.
328.75 481.75
481.50 577.00
1 yr.
8 mos.
we projected the staff required to search the anticipated work load for 1978-79 using data obtained through the logs. This documentation served as the basis of a justification for additional staffing. Another application which could perhaps be made of such a study would be to establish a quota system. Table 4 indicates the number of orders and books searched by individual searcher. The number ranged from 1,314 to 3,034! Such extremes leads one to a close scrutiny of the factors contributing to such a dramatic difference. The two most obvious ones are the time worked (which ranged from 481.75 to 583.25 hours) and the time spent searching (which ranged from 280.25 to 490.75 hours). A third factor not apparent from the logs themselves was revealed through discussions with the searchers. Some special projects and assignments were so disruptive that the searcher had few large blocks of time in which to complete a search. Presumably, length of experience would have some bearing on productivity; however, in our study, there was no apparent correlation. Since evaluation of individual performance was not a purpose of the logs, there was little analysis of other personal factors such as motivation and work habits, which might have affected performance. After considering the variations between the searchers, the section rejected a quota system. It is clear that a quota would provide only one indicator of performance for a complex task. We concur with Carson’s assessment that “although it is a simple enough matter to total numerical production and performance figures, complexity and difficulty of the work and the quality of accomplishment are, of course, less-tangible characteristics; and judgments of the quality of performance prove to be more elusive.“2 Preferring not to place quantity above quality, we agreed that attention to improving work flow, streamlining of procedures, and making instructions more explicit could achieve the same goal. One must weigh the costs of such a study against the benefits gained. As a study like this gathers a large quantity of data, one must be willing and able to spend the time needed to tally, calculate, and interpret it. In our case, each searcher spent a minimum of thirty minutes per week just completing the log. Approximately one hundred and fifteen hours were invested for planning, computation, and interpretation of the study; therefore, one can reasonably ask whether it was worth the effort.
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
83
The section found that the study did provide useful management data which had been lacking. First, we gained a much better knowledge of our work load and its complexity. In fact, we found the information about the categories of requests received so useful that we now routinely record similar information at the time the requests are received. We determined the exact effect leave taken, projects assigned, and committee participation have upon the time available for searching. Finally, although the averages are subject to change, we documented the time currently required to search a title in each category. These averages helped us to identify problem areas which were requiring a disproportionate amount of time; we are now working to streamline these. In conclusion, the information obtained has been used in two ways. It formed the nucleus of a justification for more staff and, perhaps more importantly, stimulated brainstorming about the many factors affecting the searching operation and how best to achieve the results needed from our section. As a result of this examination, we have identified factors which we are trying to either monitor, change, or control. The outcome, we hope, will be a more efficient and effective searching operation.
REFERENCES 1. Carson, Doris M. “The Act of Cataloging,” Library Resources and Technical Services 20 (Spring 1976), 150. 2. Carson, p. 153.
0364-6408/78/020077-07$02.00/0 Copyright 0 1978 Pergamon Press
TIME LOGS FOR SEARCHERS: HOW USEFUL? JANET L. FLOWERS Head, Bibliographic Searching Section Wilson Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
ABSTRACT The Bibliographic Searching Section at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill studied its operation through the use of time logs. The six searchers recorded their daily activities from September through December 197% Useful management data about search categories, average search times, and productive time available was obtained It ws used as the nucleus for a justification requesting additional staff and stimulated further evaluation of policies and procedures.
The searching unit in a large research library can be a complex, sophisticated operation presenting numerous management challenges. Those responsible for pre-order searching may have to deal with dramatic fluctuations in the flow of orders received. As the completeness and accuracy of the order requests submitted can vary considerably, so may the time needed to correct, complete, and clarify the requests. In addition, supervisors are often unable to observe the staff performing the verification since they must consult files and tools located outside the immediate work area. As one surveys library literature seeking information about how to deal with these issues, one becomes increasingly aware of the need for more documentation about the time actually required for searching. Many forces interact in the searching process, so one must carefully observe the activity to assess its efficiency. A supervisor must know the nature of the work to be done, the time available to perform it, and the time required in order to reliably predict, measure, and evaluate his section’s performance. In the past, the effective management of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Searching Section has been hindered by insufficient information about the various categories of requests received, the time required to search titles in each category and the hours actually spent searching. For these reasons, the section decided to study its operation using time logs; in August 1977, a log was designed which could provide the desired information (Figure 1). The Categories-Rush Search, Regular Search, Book Search, Meetings, and Other-were chosen to describe the activities in which the searcher could be involved. The definitions for the search categories were derived from established sorting procedures. Rush orders include out-of-print titles being offered by an antiquarian dealer, titles needed immediately, quotes from dealers, and confirming orders. Regular orders are sorted on the basis of copy, series, and country of
77
78
JANETL.FLOWERS
FIGURE 1 Searcher’s Time Logs UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL BIBLIOGRAPHIC SEARCEING SECTION ACQUISITIONS DEPARTMENT SEARCHER'S ACTIVITY RECORD Week Ending
Name (Searcher)
OTHER
O-15 15-30 30-45 45-60
minutes minutes minutes minutes
= .25 = .50 = .75 = 1.00
79
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
publication. Book search occurs in three cases-monographic series received on standing order, approval plans, and search on arrival to complete an abbreviated pre-order search. “Other” was for those activities which were not purely searching. The searchers were instructed to list here such projects and assignments as training students to use the computer terminal, sorting of orders received, reserving out-of-print titles, compiling statistics, updating manuals, and drawing flow charts of search sequences. The six searchers recorded their activities on the time logs from September through December 1977. The individual weekly logs were collected and tallied at the end of each month. A final report for the four-month period was compiled in January 1978. Although the study was not scrupulously controlled, the searchers were conscientious in their recordkeeping. The large quantity of data obtained made the calculations a difficult and time-consuming task. Fortunately, some useful management data was obtained. First, we gained a more precise record of the work to be done by our section. Table 1 records the number of requests received in each category. Knowing the percentages is important because a major change in any of them can affect not only our work load but our workjlow as well, which has implications for staffing. This breakdown served as a useful reminder to us that, while regular
Total Orders/Books
TABLE 1 Searched and Percentages
for Each Search Category
Search Categories Rush Search Current/Previous Retrospective Total
Year
Regular Search Copy, no series Copy, series U.S. trade, without copy Other, without copy Problems, sets, serials Total Book Search Monographs classed separately (rec’d on Standing Order) University Press titles rec’d on Approval Search on Arrival (Follow-up Pm-Order Problems) Search on Arrival (Completion of Abbreviated or No Pre-Order Search) Total NOTE: 13,929 orders/books
were searched during the four month period.
Total Orders/ Books Searched
Percentage Searched
430 1,351 1.781
3.1 9.7 12.8
4,918 2,508 790 1,420 1,129 10,765
35.3 18.0 5.7 10.2 8.1 77.3
535 675 71
3.8 4.9 0.5
102
0.7
1,383
9.9
JANET L. FLOWERS
80
TABLE 2 Hours Available, Worked, Spent Searching Hours Worked
Category Rush, Regular, Book Search
230.00 600.50 103.50
Meetings/Committee Work Other (section related) Other (library related)
3,23 1.OO
Total Hours Worked
NOTE: During the four month period studied, the six searchers were paid for 4,176 hours.
TABLE 3 Average Times to Search Order/Book
in Each Category Average Number of Minutes per Order
Category Rush Search Current/Previous Retrospective
Year
14.5 19.4
Regular Search Copy, no series Copy, series U.S. trade, without copy Other, without copy Problems, sets, serials
3.8 8.0 11.7 11.9 22.0
Book Search Monographs classed separately (rec’d on Standing Order) University Press titles Received on Approval Search on Arrival (Follow-up Pre-Order Problems) Search on Arrival (Completion of Abbreviated or no Pre-Order Search)
14.2 5.9 25.8 19.1
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
81
orders comprise the largest percentage of our search, the percentage of rush and book searches is significant. Secondly, we learned exactly how much time was available to perform the searching. Due to standard leave benefits, it must be assumed that each searcher gets paid for many non-working hours. Table 2 accounts for the searchers’ time during the study. For the four-month period, the six searchers worked 3,231 hours which was only 77.4% of the salaried hours. The logs aho revealed that of the hours worked, 2,297 hours were spent searching, i.e., 71% of working hours. This means that only 55% of the salaried hours were spent searching! Information like this is invaluable, for as Doris Carson stated in her description of a similar study of catalogers’ “any accurate estimate or equitable judgment of. . . performance must take into productivity, account the time spent in activities which erode . . . productive time.“’ Thirdly, we determined the average time required to search a title in each category. Initial reaction to these times, shown in Table 3, might be one of shock; naturally, they invite interpretation. As this paper deals more with the methodology than the results of the study, the figures themselves will not be discussed, but the background information which follows should explain at least the major elements that might cause these to be high. The effects of work flow and staff assignments were significant. Rush orders and book search are handled exclusively by the searchers, whereas regular orders are not; therefore, the time for the preliminary searching by the student assistants must be added to give a complete account of the time required for regular orders. This preliminary search (order file, catalog by title for older titles, and SOLINET terminal for appropriate titles) was not studied; however, approximately five minutes added to the average time for each regular order is a reasonable estimate. The processing of each search category must also be considered. Rush orders are dealt with individually, whereas regular orders are grouped for efficiency of search. Our long-held assumption that the absence of copy or the presence of a series increases the time required to search an order was substantiated by the data. Variation in the steps performed for each search category also contributes to the time differences. For example, retrospective rush orders are normally searched in the National Union Gztalog, a most unusual step for the other categories. As this involves the photocopying of the record found, it can be quite time-consuming, especially when the photocopier is not functioning well. Since the material has already been received, book search does not require the same steps as pm-order search. While interesting, the average times derived from this study should not be regarded as standards. They apply only to a specific situation at a particular time. Such local factors as depth and extent of searching performed, location of fdes and tools, as well as the nature of the orders/books searched would influence the average times at other institutions. The definitions of categories as well as the methods of calculation and computation would also affect the averages. The information gathered from such a study can enable one to predict a unit’s ability to respond to an increased work load. At UNC-CH, unlike many other libraries, the book budget has increased recently. In addition to a heavier work load, functions within the searching section have changed dramatically. Pre-order searching on the terminal became standard practice almost immediately after the library joined SOLINET in 1975. This has had profound effects upon work flow, training, scheduling, and search sequences. New approval plans have resulted in the need for post-receipt search procedures. The trend toward greater staff participation in committee work, while providing job enrichment, has naturally decreased work time actually spent in searching as well as complicated the management of the section. As a result of the need to adapt to these changes, alternatives such as the addition of temporary staff, the use of more student hours, and short cuts in searching sequences were tried. Even after these measures, we were still having difficulty meeting our responsibilities. During February, 1978,
82
JANET L. F&a&,&RS
Number of Orders/Books
TABLE 4 Searched, Time Spent and Experience by Individual
Searcher
Searcher A
B
C
D
E
F
236 1058 20 1314
235 548 586 1369
221 2050 3 2274
201 2755 11 2967
512 2421 38 2971
376 1933 725 3034
Search Category Rush Regular Book Search Total Hours Spent Searching Hours Worked Experience at Beginning of Study
380.00 511.00
335.75 522.50
490.75 548.50
280.25 583.25
14 mo.
2 yrs.
1 mo.
6 yrs.
328.75 481.75
481.50 577.00
1 yr.
8 mos.
we projected the staff required to search the anticipated work load for 1978-79 using data obtained through the logs. This documentation served as the basis of a justification for additional staffing. Another application which could perhaps be made of such a study would be to establish a quota system. Table 4 indicates the number of orders and books searched by individual searcher. The number ranged from 1,314 to 3,034! Such extremes leads one to a close scrutiny of the factors contributing to such a dramatic difference. The two most obvious ones are the time worked (which ranged from 481.75 to 583.25 hours) and the time spent searching (which ranged from 280.25 to 490.75 hours). A third factor not apparent from the logs themselves was revealed through discussions with the searchers. Some special projects and assignments were so disruptive that the searcher had few large blocks of time in which to complete a search. Presumably, length of experience would have some bearing on productivity; however, in our study, there was no apparent correlation. Since evaluation of individual performance was not a purpose of the logs, there was little analysis of other personal factors such as motivation and work habits, which might have affected performance. After considering the variations between the searchers, the section rejected a quota system. It is clear that a quota would provide only one indicator of performance for a complex task. We concur with Carson’s assessment that “although it is a simple enough matter to total numerical production and performance figures, complexity and difficulty of the work and the quality of accomplishment are, of course, less-tangible characteristics; and judgments of the quality of performance prove to be more elusive.“2 Preferring not to place quantity above quality, we agreed that attention to improving work flow, streamlining of procedures, and making instructions more explicit could achieve the same goal. One must weigh the costs of such a study against the benefits gained. As a study like this gathers a large quantity of data, one must be willing and able to spend the time needed to tally, calculate, and interpret it. In our case, each searcher spent a minimum of thirty minutes per week just completing the log. Approximately one hundred and fifteen hours were invested for planning, computation, and interpretation of the study; therefore, one can reasonably ask whether it was worth the effort.
Time Logs for Searchers: How Useful?
83
The section found that the study did provide useful management data which had been lacking. First, we gained a much better knowledge of our work load and its complexity. In fact, we found the information about the categories of requests received so useful that we now routinely record similar information at the time the requests are received. We determined the exact effect leave taken, projects assigned, and committee participation have upon the time available for searching. Finally, although the averages are subject to change, we documented the time currently required to search a title in each category. These averages helped us to identify problem areas which were requiring a disproportionate amount of time; we are now working to streamline these. In conclusion, the information obtained has been used in two ways. It formed the nucleus of a justification for more staff and, perhaps more importantly, stimulated brainstorming about the many factors affecting the searching operation and how best to achieve the results needed from our section. As a result of this examination, we have identified factors which we are trying to either monitor, change, or control. The outcome, we hope, will be a more efficient and effective searching operation.
REFERENCES 1. Carson, Doris M. “The Act of Cataloging,” Library Resources and Technical Services 20 (Spring 1976), 150. 2. Carson, p. 153.