Adam's point about Coop staffing is well made and I wouldn't disagree with
its general thrust.
However, one thing I feel we can do is look to workflows that reduce the
pressures on LC staff, and perhaps consequently eases the burden on Coop.
So, for example, if (without prejudging the outcome of this group's work) we
were to recommend minimum quotas, and the use of the utilities for record
submission, perhaps proposals could bypass Coop entirely and be left
entirely for CPSO to deal with? Perhaps LC itself might want to look at why
CPSO sets the rules, but Coop is left to try to explain or justify them to
the participants (shouldn't CPSO be doing that??)? And the consultant's
report identified a problem in the amount of handling that proposals
received within LC as an issue, as I recall.
So, whilst I agree with every last word that Adam wrote, I also feel that we
can assist Coop to meet targets by proposing mechanisms and workflows which
have the potential for reducing the burden on Coop staff.
I'm glad Adam raised this.
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)