We have a version of the Web proposal form locally that our catalogers
fill out and when they submit the form it comes to me as an email. I can
then review it and cut and paste from the email into the Web form that
goes on to LC. When I send the final version, I can make a printout of
what was submitted and can provide that back to cataloger to give them
feedback on how to make better proposals.
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* [log in to unmask] *
**************************************
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Hugh Taylor wrote:
> Ana's recent message referred to the regrettable absence of a "“save
> file” mechanism to facilitate internal review practices and prevent
> re-keying". I'm interested to know how others are coping with this.
>
> There are two stages for which we're seeking a "neat" solution - i.e., a
> solution which enables a "continuum" in the proposal process, and which
> doesn't simply begin and end with the keying of the proposal on the Web
> form.
>
> 1. "upstream" - allowing one's staff to start work on proposals and to
> submit them to their local liaison person in a form which the latter can
> then, with minimum effort (and even less rekeying), submit to LC after
> review and appropriate amendment.
>
> 2. "downstream" - allowing the liaison to take a copy of the finished
> proposal in order to provide feedback to the member of staff who did most
> of the work, as well as to track its progress through the system. There
> has to be something better than Alt+PrintScreen snagging of the web form,
> surely?
>
> There are at least 4 stages to a SACO proposal in our organisation (are
> we unusual?):
>
> Preparation of draft proposal and submission to Liaison
> Review and finishing off of proposal content by Liaison
> Submission of proposal to LC by institutional liaison
> Internal feedback and monitoring post-submission
>
> The Web form is clearly ideal for the third of these steps, but is less
> well suited to being part of an ongoing workflow. I would welcome ideas
> from other SACO participants whose workflows are broadly similar to our
> own as to how you are managing to fit the Web form into your workflow.
>
> One "solution" would be to tell any of my staff wishing to submit a
> proposal to do it directly themselves (via the Web form), and to skip the
> internal review stage entirely. But the quality of the proposals
> submitted to LC would inevitably drop, thereby causing more work for LC
> staff (as well as impacting eventually on the "good name" of our
> university - I'm assuming we have one...). So the time LC might be saving
> with the web form would be replaced by time spent cleaning up Cambridge
> proposals. (Despite individuals' best intentions, the local liaison will
> inevitably have specific skills that enable him/her to tidy up even the
> best of proposals.)
>
> I'm sure others will have already addressed this issue and would
> appreciate guidance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hugh
> --
> Hugh Taylor
> Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
>
> email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 339973
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
>
|