[rak-list] Fwd: Re: [RDA-L] Documentation for transition

[Armin Stephan]

Das sind bislang summa summarum  1036 Arbeitsstunden.

Das entspricht Personalkosten  von ca. 25.000 EUR (geh. Dienst).

Gruß
Armin Stephan

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	Re: [RDA-L] Documentation for transition
Datum: 	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:21:40 -0400
Von: 	Aaron Smith <aaronkaysmith at GMAIL.COM>
Antwort an: 	Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access <RDA-L at LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
An: 	RDA-L at LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA


>  In case it's useful or interesting, I was recently asked to outline areas that required significant staff time.  These are my best estimates; they are reflective solely of our own organization and particular systems (Horizon and Aquabrowser):
>
>  - Prepare ILS for RDA fields:  5 hours total
>
>  - Create test records for the system and for comparative analysis with AACR2:  20-30 hours total (we did this in April/May 2010 before copy was available in OCLC; I don't think most organizations will have to do this now)
>
>  - Discuss and implement record displays (i.e., new RDA field labeling, etc.):  10 hours total
>
>  - Review LC/PCC documentation and make local policy decisions:  10 hours x 13 people
>
>  - FRBR&  RDA Toolkit Webinar training:  5 hours x 42 people
>
>  - Initial RDA training:  8 hours x 42 people
>
>  - Library-wide presentation:  1 hour x 60 people + 5 hours prep
>
>  - Regular meetings of testers (Aug-Dec):  15 hours x 15 people
>
>  - Post-test policy revision and development (January 2011):  2 hours x 15 people
>
>  - Post-test record, survey analysis:  (not sure yet, just beginning this April 2011)
>
>  - User testing:  (not sure yet, just beginning this April 2011)
>
>
>  The last bullet on the above list ("user testing") will also incur (yet unknown) costs.  A group of original catalogers is just beginning a process of building an assessment program around the RDA data we are creating, focusing on areas that could affect decision making (either locally or more broadly).  I expect much of the assessment and user testing will attempt to hone in on RDA data in the specific light of FRBR user tasks.  This will clearly require some cataloger time away from cataloging, and represents another expenditure of staff time related to implementing RDA.  But I am hopeful that this investment (a) will provide a leadership and professional development opportunity for catalogers to assess bibliographic and authority data in a way we never have before, (b) will allow us to integrate cataloging into the Library's overall assessment culture; (c) will help catalogers learn assessment principles and techniques; (d) contribute to the production of data to inform our community about areas where RDA facilitates user tasks, doesn't facilitate user tasks, how RDA might be improved, and the implications on local system configuration (labeling, use of RDA data in faceted browsing, etc.).
>