Left Menu Right Menu

ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE

SHARED CONTENT TEAM MEETING

1:00-2:00 p.m., November 20, 2015

APPROVED MINUTES

Present: Gordon Aamot (University of Washington), Xan Arch (Reed College), Amy Coughenour (Concordia University), Kristi DeShazo (Oregon Health & Science University), Jill Emery (Portland State University), Tina Hovekamp (Council Liaison, Central Oregon Community College), Corey Murata (University of Washington), Mike Olson (Chair, Western Washington University), Kathi Carlisle Fountain (Program Manager, Orbis Cascade Alliance).

Notes: Taken by Kristi. Next team member in the rotation (alphabetical by membership list) is Jill.

Agenda:

1. Collaborative Workforce Inventory – update (Kathi, Mike)

Related documents: here and here

Kathi described the work of the Collaborative Workforce Team and development of the inventory spreadsheet. The Team is requesting input from other Alliance teams. In order to help populate the inventory spreadsheet Kathi suggested she work with Mike on adding general Shared Content Team work and that she and working group chairs come up with items to add related their groups.

ACTION ITEMS:

· Items to be added to the Collaborative Workforce Inventory spreadsheet by Kathi, Mike and working group chairs by December 31.

2. Hathi Trust – update (Kathi)

During open question period at last council meeting the question was asked where Alliance was regarding Hathi Trust membership. SCT initiative simply states it will collaborate with CCD to investigate Hathi Trust membership while CCD initiative mentions Hathi Trust as a potential/possible national-scale solution to developing digital preservation strategies. There appears to be a need for clarity of understanding what the Hathi Trust is in order for Alliance libraries to respond to the question of membership.

It was suggested that some kind of information memo be developed with high level cost modelling to get input from others on whether to pursue membership or not. Mike suggested drafting the memo within this team and share with CCD.

3. Reports, updates

i. E-Book Working Group (Kristi)

The group has received additional input to the ebook survey and will finalize a summary of results to share with Alliance libraries. An open call is planned December 10 for all SCT representative members and interested staff to get and provide feedback on possible program changes going forward.

ii. Consortial Alma Collection Development Working Group (Corey)

The working group continues to work on license description and are deciding how to move forward.

iii. Priority Support Issues (Amy)

Amy shared information from a Priority Support Issues meeting held Tuesday, November 17, with Ex Libris. Case escalation and Closing case status processes were clarified. Al Cornish sent notes from the meeting to members of the Priority Support Issues group.

ACTION ITEM:

· Amy will share the Case escalation and Closing case status information from Al’s notes with SCT representatives.

iv. Centers of Excellence (Kathi, Jill)

The group is looking at analytics and finding that pulling statistics for all libraries is cumbersome. Fortunately, improvement on this process is already high on Alma Enhancements Request list. For now, member libraries only have access to their own data. A February update will make consortial view available.

4. Finalize Alliance Statement of Collection Development Guiding Principles for SCT Representatives (Gordon, Tina, Xan)

See attached document (distributed by Gordon to SCT on Nov. 18) and background here

Mike asked the group if we felt the document was ready to go. Comments made by Jill in an email thread were well received and it was suggested that they be either incorporated into the document or used as preamble to presenting the document.

There were also questions raised via email and discussed in the meeting. Questions included:

· Should the document more clearly delineate Alliance level support vs individual library action?

· Why does SCT wish to put this document into effect now? What is the goal? What is the point of this document? How does it favorably disrupt the status quo? How will the document, once approved, improve both the Alliance and all members? Is not much of what the document advocates already in effect?

· Which other questions can we already anticipate from Reps, Board and Council – and answer in the document? Does this look like a board/council-worthy document?

It was reiterated that we want this to be a statement of intentions. We can’t tell member libraries what to do, but we can talk about what we intend to do together.

It was also noted that this document helps to shape our work that supports shared collections.

A lack of consensus on how to present the document left the team suggesting a work up of two versions incorporating suggestions from emails and discussion and have the whole group consider before our next meeting.

ACTION ITEM:

· Xan, Gordon, and Tina will rework the document into two versions for review.

Next meeting: December 4, 1:00-2:00 p.m.