Orbis Cascade Alliance Electronic Resource Steering Team Meeting

April 26, 2004

Teleconference

 

 

Attending by phone: Tim Jewell, UW, Chair; John Creech, CWU; Greg Doyle, Alliance staff; Barbara Valentine, Linfield; Diane Carroll, OHSU; Heather Whipple, Reed; Susan Hinken, UP; Emily Francisco-Miller, SOU

 

The primary focus of the meeting was to develop the agenda for the upcoming Committee meeting scheduled for May 14, 2004. Tim led the discussion through the preliminary agenda that had been sent by Greg on 4-23-04.

 Decision: As the ERST worked through the agenda, it was decided the structure Tim and Greg suggested lent itself to a focus on databases in the morning and e-journals in the afternoon. Tim will flesh out agenda to reflect this division.

 

9:30-10:00: Coffee/Tea/Snacks/Schmoosing before meeting start:

 This seemed fairly self-explanatory

 

10:00-11:00: The Alliance ER: background of CLP and Orbis; role of the ER committee:

 Discussion: Tim indicated that it was an ER meeting. Later we would be talking about a request from John Helmer to suggest other program or meeting ideas. Several team members voiced concern about having enough time for the next section on the ER process. The cost allocation discussion will take time. It was suggested that we reduce the background to a half hour and extend the process portion by that same amount. 

 Decision/Follow-up: The background section will be scheduled for ½ hour. Tim will take the lead in developing this section and ask others to contribute.

 

11:00 to Noon: ER process

 Discussion: This portion of the meeting is divided into three segments. We discussed issues to raise, time allocation for each segment and the order in which these should be presented:

· Renewals

· New products

· Cost allocation

Decision on agenda: This segment will now run from 10:30 to noon. It will be reordered so that cost allocation comes first. Each segment will be scheduled for 30 minutes, with wiggle-room depending on how discussion goes. Tim will emphasize that this is a data gathering/brainstorming meeting to get ideas how to proceed. The steering team will take the ideas and develop solutions that will come back to the larger group for input and refinement.

 

Cost allocation:

Discussion: Barbara highlighted how complex and confusing cost allocation can be. She suggests we use examples to demonstrate the thorny issues and ask for input on how to proceed. She said although Orbis had price allocation guidelines, the cost distribution for each product was shaped and reshaped. Problems will arise as the former CLP libraries are brought into the buying group. Should the trade-offs of expanding, especially existing purchases be discussed? The group said yes.

Decision/Follow-up: Barbara will have the lead on cost allocation and work with Debi and Greg on presenting this portion of the agenda.

 

Renewals:

 Discussion: Greg said he would bring the survey results about renewals and discuss his findings. Most libraries have responded and he will be chasing down those who have not. Diane raised the issue of paperwork: billing, licensing, etc. Each issue has various levels of complexity. It would be helpful to members to understand direct billing vs. central billing and the licensing process. Barbara pointed out that Orbis had been working on a more systematic approach to licensing but it was a work in progress.

 Decision/Follow-up: Greg with work with Debi to come with information on the various billing models for the meetings.

 

New products:

 Discussion: Greg has some ideas for discussion. He would like this to be an opportunity to discuss what members want now that the number of committee meetings will be reduced from the former Orbis CER. Diane suggested that this discussion should also emphasize the members’ roles in furthering the work of the committee. Susan suggested we should also discuss how to make best use of Alliance staff time, to look at ways to establish a process that does not overburden staff or is unnecessarily complex. Issues included:

· Floating new products

· Scheduling trials, possible timetable variations with e-journals and databases

· Level or number of concurrent trials

· Joining a subscription in the middle of the cycle

Tim said UW had tried to broker Wash/Oregon purchases in the past and gave HRAF as an example as one that was not able to move to completion. John and Heather said their libraries are interested in HRAF. Could this possibly be a test case? Greg also said that Classical.com could be used as a new product test, he will be asking that a trial for the entire consortium be turned on soon.

  Decision/Follow-up: Greg will lead the new product discussion with survey results in hand. He will also be setting up the Classical.com trial. Greg could also poll the group to see if interest in HRAF could be resurrected.

 

Noon-1:00 Lunch

 Over 30 people have signed up for the meeting. Greg did not know the room configuration. The ERST thought that at lunch about 5-6 per table would facilitate discussion, and would prefer a room set up to accommodate. Our goal is to listen to people and bring back concerns, reaction and ideas.

 Decision/Follow-up: Greg will check with Travis about room configuration and get back to the list. ERST members will position themselves around the room to make sure a team member is at every table.

 

1:00-2:00: E-journal discussion:

 Discussion: Christine Stamison of Swets will be joining us to represent the vendor viewpoint. She knows that the Alliance is in transitions and should tailor her remarks with that understanding. ERST members had questions they would like her to consider:

· Pros of working with consortia

· Cons of working with consortia

· Typical timetable when working with consortia

· What can a consortium do to facilitate the process?

· What is the impact of the changing role of the subscription agent as publishers price to work directly with libraries

· What are different approaches she has seen consortia use?

· What is better left to the agent/publisher and what is better left to the libraries

· What’s the status of the “Big Deal”; how do they work for the small and medium size library

Decision/Follow-up: Tim will contact Christine with our questions. Tim, Greg and Diane will develop the overall e-journals program

 

Discussion: Our questions about e-journals extend beyond Kristine’s presentation. Other areas of discussion included:

· GWLA

· ACS

· Kluwer

GWLA discussion: Tim asked if we should also discuss what GWLA packages are available to Alliance members. Alliance members can participate in GWLA deals and this opportunity will open doors we can’t open on our own. Greg said he doesn’t quite have a handle on e-journals yet and is a little uncomfortable about proceeding. Diane said she found investigating GWLA opportunities to be a bit daunting, as did John. Tim said that GWLA, like the Alliance is a work in progress. 

GWLA decision/follow-up: Tim will work GWLA into an early segment of the meeting.

 

Kluwer discussion: Greg suggested that the Kluwer proposal might be a good one for the Alliance to begin with. We could, through investigation of their offer, begin to grapple with some of our questions and issues.

 Kluwer decision/follow-up: Greg will take the lead in using this proposal as a way of illustrating the issues and complications inherent in a consortial ejournal package.

 

ACS discussion: ACS is the only journal package that had been purchased through Orbis. Since that original purchase the vendor has proposed changing the model and pricing to focus on an online subscription rather than an online with print. This change has implications for the group.

ACS decision/follow-up: Tim will decide where to insert this into the e-journal discussion.

 

2:00-2:30: ERM

 Discussion: How to best use the last hour? Do people want to hear about ERM? Lots of interest in the ERM. How much time should we devote to this discussion and what people were expecting? Barbara said she would like someone to explicate the product. It was suggested that we hear how UW is using it in Special Collections as an example of how libraries are creatively using the module. Tim is willing to talk with Diane Grover about the UW experience and share it to the group. Susan suggested that ER work with the Alliance staff to sponsor a ERM day, like the E-Journals day Orbis sponsored a while back with participation open to all Alliance library staff members. The morning could be devoted to hearing about the beta tests in Alliance libraries, the process libraries used to decide on a purchase, and issues in implementation. The afternoon could be devoted to product demo and Q & A with III staff (who would not be invited to the morning session).

 Decision/Follow-up: Tim will develop a brief presentation based upon the UW experience and will take the meeting/program idea to John if sufficient interest is expressed during the ERM presentation at the meeting on 5/14. We will be flexible with time to allow for wrap-up.

 

2:30-3:00 Ebsco product discussion:

 Discussion: Tim said the Washington libraries might be interested in hearing about the Oregon process as they will soon be looking at a general database package but his intention wasn’t to preclude a more wide-ranging meeting wrap-up. 

 Decision/follow-up: The last half hour will be for an “open-mike” meeting wrap up, looking for concerns and comments from the group. We could use this time to hear a brief report on the Oregon statewide licensing experiences (or that could be reported on the list), member comments on the day’s program, and about the issues, comments, suggestions, etc. from the lunch discussions.

 

Minutes prepared by Susan Hinken, April 26, 2004