CDMC-Minutes-060818CDMC Steering Committee Meeting Friday, August 18, 2006 WSU Vancouver
Present: Lynn Chmelir, Linda Di Biase, Sarah Beasley, Mark Watson, Susan Hinken, Joni Roberts, Greg Doyle, John Helmer, and Carol McCulley.
Carol McCulley volunteered to be recorder.
Announcements:
Plans for CDMC and EC joint meeting on October 6: Sarah
Sarah updated the committee on the agenda. Her planning committee is ½ to ¾ there for determining who is presenting.
1. There will be three topics with invited guests and presentations: a. LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, and PORTICO b. a panel of serials publishers, a serials agent, and an Alliance serials librarian (Faye Chadwell) to discuss the nature of publishing today and how it is affecting collection. This will replace the federated searching session in the previous agenda. c. III/Summit statistics presented by Nancy Nathanson and perhaps Laura Willey to bring the institutional perspective to the discussion. The discussion will cover problems such as getting reports by titles or call numbers, but not both and what kind of reports we can generate at the local level. John suggested that we begin thinking about what we want from the data so we will know what data to collect. These discussions will be part of the project discussions at the end of the day.
Linda Di Biase showed us her survey that she developed to send to the CDMC regarding how our institutions make use of the statistics that are available from Innovative. She designed the survey to be brief and more suggestive than prescriptive. 2. Committee Reports 3. Discussion of proposed topics to bring to Council
ACTION: Linda will send her survey to Greg who will set it up on Zoomerang. Linda, Nancy Nathanson and Laura Willey will review the survey before it goes out. It will go out at the beginning of September and responses will be collected until September 25.
Sarah mentioned that there will probably be no session on reference e-books at the October meeting, but she will know more after her planning committee meeting next week. Sarah will send us any changes in the agenda.
John mentioned that the Council meets October 5 and 6 and they may arrange their agenda so that they can join the CDMC/ER meeting at 10. There was a question about opening our meeting up to more than committee members and Council. It will probably need to be limited because of the number of committee members, but it may depend on the size of the room when that it established. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for WSU Vancouver.
ACS/JSTOR Distributed Print Archive Mark
Mark reviewed his preliminary analysis of the three spreadsheets, including a 500 page spreadsheet, with the data from the distributed print archive project. He gave copies of the analysis to each of us. Some of the items discussed were:
ACTION: Mark will e-mail libraries that have runs of the 43 titles that are complete at possibly only one library asking them not to weed these titles until our project is complete. He will put a list of those titles on the Alliance web site.
Linda asked several questions brought up by the survey and from her library staff regarding the MOU. Her draft MOU was based on the dim repository of JSTOR titles that she got from ACRL.
Conclusions about MOUs- (Linda can amend the light archive document for the dark archive MOU) they should:
ACTION:
Shared Projects Inventory Sarah Sarah reviewed a spreadsheet of the shared projects organized by date. She highlighted the sources of funding for the projects. NAPCU and PORTALS were the largest supporters. PORTALS has a 1990 document on research collections based on Books for College Libraries, in the Portland area. Sarah concluded that the consortium has taken on the role for many of these projects. What is the role of collaborative collection development here? The inventory does give us a history of collaboration among our institutions and its role could be to inspire and inform.
We discussed whether this document should be put on the web and whether or not it should be updated. Does it answer the question asked by Council? A web document would make it more accessible and it could be looked at every year to see if it needed to be updated.
ACTION:
There was a discussion of the current self-funding of projects that seems to be the norm. It was suggested that the Meyer Memorial Trust should be investigated as a source of funding for libraries. John mentioned that RLSC looked at foundations for funding and Meyer Memorial Trust said they do not work with consortia, only single libraries.
Monograph vendors: how to proceed?
This is a new charge from Council. The results from the survey of interest in consortial purchases from a vendor were positive. The Alliance spends $10 million on books, which should have some influence with vendors. There were three main vendors with which Alliance libraries have agreements, Blackwell, YBP, and Midwest. Midwest does not work with consortia, but because many libraries have good working relationships with them and they are highly thought of, they will be included in the list.
ACTION: Lynn and Susan Hinken will form a task force to develop an RFI. Lynn will contact the members of the CDMC for another person to serve. If no one responds, Lynn and Susan will make up the task force.
There was a discussion about asking for an RFI from these vendors. John suggested that even though it is only an RFI, we need input from the Alliance about the legal implications of these documents for shared collections.
ACTION: John will check with the Alliance about the legal implications of the RFI.
Some considerations for the RFI were:
We discussed the possibility of including other vendors on our list, such as Coutts. It was decided that because libraries have relationships with the three vendors on the list that bringing in a vendor with which no library has worked would be counter productive for buy in by the libraries. It will be important for us to market the benefits of collaboratively working with a vendor.
Revisiting Summit Collection Analysis: John
John reported from Council that cooperative collection development is their second priority for action items behind the RLSC. This is an endorsement of what the CDMC is doing. Council has no expected outcomes at this time. Their interest is similar to what Nancy Nathanson and Laura Willey will be discussing at the CDMC/ER meeting in October, what data is available locally and through the Summit catalog? What kind of data should be collected? Council may change the Catalog Committee’s charge. John suggested that CDMC communicate what kind of data we want to the Catalog Committee. There is some information about what is available on the Orbis Cascade staff homepage.
Addition to the agenda: What do we want to achieve?
We discussed a list of strengths of each library. Maria Kunkel is working on accreditation support for Council. Would Council give money to a project to determine the strengths of member libraries? John suggested that they might consider it if it would take it to the next level of informing collection development. It was suggested that we reconsider a collection management program. Lynn mentioned that the OCLC product was discussed in the TRLN collection analysis project. Linda said that UW has used OCLC’s Collection Analysis for up to five peer group comparisons and for individual collections. Input can be by language, publication date, or subjects based on WLN. Linda stated that the product is not good for interdisciplinary subjects or serials. The consortial product is different and may offer different things. It was suggested we could ask for a trial of the consortial product or do a pilot product among a few schools to analyze the benefits.
ACTION: Linda will check with OCLC to get a list of Alliance members who have the product. UW could set up five libraries as peer groups and try it as a pilot. She will also look into other consortia that have used the consortial product and will give the committee a status report.
Ulrich’s Serials Analysis System
Linda reported that UW trialed this product because OCLC is not good for current serials. One of the biggest and most time consuming problems was uploading ISSNs onto Ulrich’s server. It took over five hours for 138 titles and there was a 15-20% error rate. Impact factors have to be gotten title by title. They did not look at the consortial product, however.
Susan reported on Michael Norman’s perception of the product from a collection analysis project of Illinois science libraries. There were 65 libraries in the consortia and 12 outside libraries. They had serious problems matching data and the project took a year. They got a state grant of $70,000 to support the analysis. The University of Illinois did most of the work and took responsibility for archiving the material in their storage facility. We concluded that the UI project had time, money, and storage, which the Alliance does not have at this time. Norman also reported that time, subjects created by Ulrichs, and ISSN matching were problems. He suggested that we negotiate what data we want out of the analysis, such as peer reviewed, and put it in the contract.
We discussed the need to define the benefits of consortial collection analysis to the consortia, as well as individual libraries. We need to consider how much time would be involved, the cost, and who does the work. It would cost most libraries $1500 or $2500/year and $50,000 for the Alliance for the Ulrichs product (USAS). Greg pointed out that we currently have four libraries that subscribe to USAS and 13 to Ulrichsweb and we spend about $50,000/year now. Our subscriptions renew in February, if we want to make any changes at that time. It was suggested that we have a webinar to discuss this at a later date.
Resources for College Libraries: Lynn
Lynn reported that it would cost $700 to $1900/ library, dependent on size, for the online edition of Resources for College Libraries. We would also need the matching product for an additional $9000 to do book analyses. The online edition would be live and therefore updated more frequently than the print edition.
Conclusions about collection management products:
ACTION:
Last copy issue: report next meeting.
Recommended number of consortial copies Carol
Carol reported that a review of several consortial collection development policies did not include a recommended number of copies and there was nothing in the library literature. Julia Gammon, from OhioLink, gave the only specific number, seven for 85 libraries. Susan added that Faye Chadwell gave a presentation at Timberline last year at which she recommended five copies for Summit, depending on the publication date. John pointed out that each library in Summit is used more than each OhioLink library because of the small size of the Alliance. The Orbis Cascade staff homepage has borrowing statistics that could help inform us. We could also ask how many times all copies of a book are checked out. Can we get statistics on titles that have more than three holds for individual libraries or through Summit?
The pursuit of a recommended number could be useful for book buying agreements. As public libraries are forced to spend less, a recommended minimum number could become more important.
ACTION: Carol will:
Central war chest? Next meeting
Steering Team liaisons to committee members? Lynn
The advantages of liaisons are:
It was decided to continue liaisons. ACTION: Lynn will review previous assignments.
Adjourned: 3:00 |