AZ ORSZÁGOS SZÉCHÉNYI KÖNYVTÁR ÉVKÖNYVE 1968-1969. Budapest (1971)
III. Az OSZK munkáiból - Faragó Lászlóné: A katalógusgondozás elemzése - Analysis of catalogue-maintenance
IRODALOM Analysis of cataloguing operations and costs. = Austr. Libr. J. 17. 1968. May, 136-137. p. Fasana, P. J. — Fall, J. E. : Processing costs for science monographs in the Columbia University libraries. = Libr. Res. Techn. Serv. 11. 1967. 1. Winter, 97— 114. p. Goldhot, H..—Rettig, M. : A sample audit of cards. = Libr. Res. Techn. Serv. 2. 1958. 2. Fall, 287-291. p. Grose, M. W. — Line, M. B. : On the construction and care of white elephants: some fundamental questions concerning the catalogue. = Libr. Assoc. Rec. 70. 1968. 1. Jan. 2—5. p. Haraszthy Gyula: Az OSZK olvasói és szolgálati katalógusai. Tervtanulmány. I. r. Bp. 1964. Gépirat. Jelentés a szolgálati betűrendes katalógus felülvizsgálatáról. (1968 szeptember—október.) Bp. 1969. 34 lap, mell. Gépirat. Fuget, A.: Catalogues: recherches récentes. — Bull. Bibi. France. 11. 1966. 6. 464—469. p. Analysis of catalogue-maintenance L. FARAGÓ With the immense growth of the catalogues the simple filing became a complex task: nowadays the catalogue needs a construction, editing. There are established performance-standards for pre-filing, sorting and for filing too, but we don't include in this standard the solving of problems, which occiir during the filingprocess, as the liquidation of inconsequences in entries and errors of order. The usual methods of time- and work measurements were not applicable for our aims, because of the complex work-flow, the variable elements, owing to the fact, that the solution of a problem is allways unique. Therefore we selected the following method : — to establish the main details of the filing-process and its work-units, — to establish the frequency and time-requirement of each work-unit, — the total time requirements all of the work-units and their proportion to the filing process. Besides the original aim of our analysis —to get a performance-standard—we hoped to get by the way of our analysis some view on the quality of our catalogues. In the course of the analysis this became of secondary importance because our method gave us an opportunity to recognise and to eliminate the recurrency of errors, to meat the trouble halfway. Though we got a clear picture of the relations of each operation and its place in the working process. We carried out our analysis in two phases: 1. to establish the proper sequence of the work elements, listing and write down them in details; 2. to measure the quantity and the required time of problem-solving during the filing process. We based our analysis parallel on two of our descriptive catalogues differing slightly in construction. According to the autor's oppinion the first phase lends itself particularly well for generalization, the second one doesn't give in its methods any new results, so we can spare to publish it. Qantitative data: our sampling of both the catalogues over 1 million cards, was 0,65%. We found, that the errors in the catalogues did not reach 1%, which is not bad. The main errors were : the same work didn't get the same entry ; errors in the entry of a name : particularly compound surnames, the choice among differently used names, pseudonyms, initials and the fullest form; and errors in order, etc. Qualitative data: During a two weeks period of the working process of the filing each one of the occuring errors was listed and classified. Conclusions for the catalogue-maintenance : 245
