CDMC-Minutes-050930-Brainstorm

Ideas for Future Activities of CDMC Results of a Committee brainstorming session, 9/30/05

Explore an OhioLINK-type relationship with Yankee or other vendor to facilitate selection in a cooperative framework (e.g., sharing approval profiles). (5; priority 1 & 3)

• Survey which vendors are currently used among Alliance members
• Find out what kind of consortial discount we could get
• Investigate the feasibility of creating cooperative approval plans (priority 3)
• Particularly useful for such things as an items not bought list

Create guidelines for using SUMMIT as a selection tool. (4; priority 2 & 5)
Pursue answering the question "how many copies are needed?" (3)

Continue working on distributed print repository. (3)
Resolve issues surrounding bright and dark archives (priority 1)
Need more articulation of policy, e.g. when will the dark archive be touched?

Explore digitization projects. (2; priority 1)
Establish a centralized web location and access
Develop a platform
Identify unique collections (i.e. theses & dissertations)

Formulate last copy agreements for books. (2; priority 1)

Explore the idea of central funding initiatives. (2)
Due to issues with state funded institutions, centralizing recommended purchases would be better route

Continue exploring collection analysis products such as OCLC's. (2)
OK for weeding as it could generate lists of duplicated titles, although most schools go through the process of checking Summit on a title-by-title basis.
Why isn't it possible for INNReach to provide us with the information available through the OCLC ACAS product, e.g. Uniqueness and Overlap?
This product is less useful for small libraries which are less collection driven
Product will be more useful when the new edition of Books (Resources?) for College Libraries is published.  Automated comparison against that list would be useful
       
Adopt a policy to "turn on" order records in for all Alliance libraries in SUMMIT. (2)  

Suggestions made by only 1 group (and the priority if listed)

Implement shared SCAT tables:  this might be an alternative to the more expensive OCLC product; this would help identify collection strengths at the call number level. (priority 2)

Make sure CDMC has a permanent liaison to the ER Committee. (priority 4)

Endorse the broad circulation of all member library materials, regardless of material type. (priority 4)

Charge the Borrowing Committee to review and resolve differences in circulation policies in order to facilitate broader sharing of member library materials, regardless of material type. (priority 5)

Build a consortial storefront where members could aggregate and sell discards.

Investigate a MARCIVE license for the consortium.

Kick the subject area interest groups into gear.
 
Offer more training on InnReach's available data/statistics and strategies for using them.
 
Develop a consortial wish list.

Explore opportunities for educating instructional faculty about cooperative CD.

Get list of SUMMIT turnaways (book requests that cannot be filled).

Charge each member library to review internal policies and procedures with a view toward reducing materials coded "LIB USE ONLY."

Survey the consortium to determine strengths of member library collections.

Buy videos and licenses to share them using video streaming.

Continue with the 2005 projects that may not be finished in 2005.

**Note—The number in parentheses indicates the number of groups who listed that particular idea; the priority number indicates the priority assigned to that idea.  Not all groups assigned priorities.

Compiler: Joni R. Roberts