Left Menu Right Menu

ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE – SUMMER MEETING

SHARED CONTENT TEAM MEETING WITH SCT REPRESENTATIVES

9:00-10:30 a.m., July 14, 2016

1. Welcome / Introductions.

All present introduced themselves: outgoing and incoming team members, representatives, Alliance staff, and guests.

2. Last Copy / 3-Copy session follow-up.

Gordon and Mike led a discussion about the Last Copy Policy and 3-Copy Threshold Guideline.

  • Why are we looking at these documents? We're following on what the team has done over the past fiscal year – Statement of Collection Development Best Practices, which Council approved last April. As a result, we're considering the two legacy documents. The Last Copy Policy was written 8 years ago (2008), and the 3-Copy Threshold was a pilot (2010/2011, sunset in 2012). Given the time, we're asking members about the relevance, usefulness, and meaningfulness of the documents. Do we use them institutionally/consortially? Do we care about them?
  • Takeaways from the session revealed that people feel like the documents are useful, but there's some up/down about their practicality and effectiveness. Over half of the attendees felt the documents were useful, but practicality of implementation was discussed.
  • What are our next steps? SCT members will review the feedback and discuss. It's likely that the team will survey representatives with additional information and requests for feedback.
  • A question came up about what attendees thought about the policies. Did people talk about the procedures? There were several thoughts about procedures and ramifications, including discussion about variance institutionally.
  • Alliance is trying to standardize nomenclature. Policies = must do. Guidelines = best practices.
  • Last Copy Policy.
    •  Implementation. Some discussion centered on practical concerns about implementing the document.
      •  The issue of outdated textbooks came up. Not every last copy is equally important. Maybe it would be good to explicitly designate certain categories where the last copy policy isn't relevant or useful. Not every last copy is equally important.
      • People were saying that the policy is good, but procedures raised questions.
      • There may be some confusion regarding guideline vs policy, and how much flexibility is present. Some clarity would be useful about how much flexibility an institution has regarding workflows, staffing, and implementation.
    • Lists. People were concerned about time used to create last copy lists.
      • Is there anyone waiting in the hopes of taking cast-offs? Are there particular areas that people watch? In many cases, yes.
      • Items are often placed in storage rather than going to the trouble of creating lists.
      • The view was expressed that if someone is weeding something, the odds are that they won't want them. But the situations vary; it may depend on the item.
      • A possible best practice may be to send a list as an Excel file instead of a Word document in order to sort the items. Also, include language about why deselecting (no longer have a program; “nasty – no one should take”). Recommend providing additional guidance to make sharing lists more useful.
    • Shared storage. A small discussion arose about shared storage practices.
      • Some Council members are talking about an opt-in storage area. Would that change the dynamics? If we have a central storage area, would we need a collection development policy for such an area? The group left it as a question for down the road.
      • We're not doing shared print repository for monographs. We have the DPR for journals. Not a lot of interest in shared print repository for monographs.
    • Weeding. Some institutions find the Last Copy Policy useful for weeding Alliance duplicates. Users with concerns about weeding are reassured to hear that a copy will be maintained somewhere in the Alliance.
      • From an Alliance perspective, it's good to be mindful of the consortium and availability. We could use an advisory statement to consider collective collection for impact, but not a mandatory policy.
    • Analytics. There are workflow challenges with identifying last copies, especially for large-scale activities.
      • Alma is not able to effectively do that, which raises a question for future discussion with the team. If this guideline is valuable enough for the institutions and the ability to identity last copies in a systematic and more programmatic way is important, is that something we need to push Ex Libris on in order to do the analytics in order for institutions to more easily identify last copies? Answer = yes.
      • NZ analytics couldn't do this analysis. Everyone loaded data differently – different metadata, etc. Given that there are 39 ways things have been entered, makes it almost impossible.
  • 3-Copy Threshold.
    • This is useful in relation to faculty requests – that is, being able to say there are already copies when in professional judgement, we don't need to add another one. But it doesn't tie us to not being able to purchase a copy if our professional judgement says that we should.
    • Timing. There was discussion about how delivery time and loan periods impact implementation of the 3-copy threshold.
      • Having to wait a week or so because of the courier breaks makes dependence on Alliance copies less desirable for users. Someone mentioned the “Cascades curtain” and east/west side impacts. When CDMC looked at 3-copy in 2010-2012, there was mention of the courier issue – location and what impact that had on delivery time.
      • Was there discussion about the length of the loans – have for 6 weeks and then must check in, order another one? This has some impact as it limits time. This is a goal to work on – advocate for more user-friendly loan periods. SCT could work with D&D team to see if there's anything we can do with policies to make content more shareable. What is the “sweet spot” for loan periods? It's all part of the sharing ecosystem.
    •  Collection analysis. There was also some discussion about how the number of three copies came about, which came through a lot of analysis.
      • But the analysis was a smaller number of institutions – some big schools have joined, and the Alliance has spread out geographically. A comment was made that we may need to perform new analysis to see what current numbers show.
      • YBP has been helpful in the past in analyzing for its customers in the Alliance to determine how many copies there are of a given title. A few years ago, an assessment was done that brought in YBP. However, this would be a subset – only those who use YBP for acquisitions.
  • ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER
    •  Last Copy Policy.
      •  General. Review feedback and discuss. Survey representatives with additional information and requests for feedback.
      • Implementation. Provide clarity about how much flexibility an institution has regarding workflows, staffing, and implementation.
      • Lists. Provide additional guidance to make sharing lists more useful.
      • Alliance impact. Provide an advisory statement to consider collective collection for impact, but not a mandatory policy.
      • Analytics. Communication and work with Ex Libris to improve analytics in order to more easily identify last copies.
    • 3-Copy Threshold.
      • Timing. Possible considerations include working with D&D Team to consider impacts of courier and loan periods in regard to 3-Copy Threshold.
      • Analysis. Is there an interest in performing a new collection analysis to determine an “x”-copy number?

3. E-books session follow-up.

Kristi provided an overview of where the program has been and where it is now, including a summary of the Wiley program.

  •  Takeaways and discussion.
  • Some talk about perpetual access (what is it, do we know what our license is).
  • Also discussed the cost of the books through the DDA program.
  • Records management is very operational for the team – lot of work done on behalf of the Alliance. Talking about members of the group who have skills to manage records.
  • Reevaluating the funding model for the DDA program. Right now, it's based on EBL. Part of the budget is dictated by use and the use factor had reflected that we're a DDA program, so it's DDA use. But given that we now have a 3 model program, that use may need to be reconfigured to better represent actual use.
  •  Ebook Central. EBL and ebrary are both ProQuest products that will merge into Ebook Central.
  • Still have to have code to understand EBL vs ebrary. How will that play into the model? Or does it matter? The new platform will have an EBL backend. The migration will move EBL and ebrary content to a mechanism where accessible on same platform with EBL backend and usage. The front end will look a little more like ebrary.
  • We'll have more purchasing options. Preferred preference for non-linear lending. 1 user and 3 user options are new from ebrary. There will be an active DDA pool that we can see represented on the backend, with more titles available. Unless we make changes and get publisher approval, there's no difference in terms of operationally managing purchases, etc.
  • We are delayed in migration because we operate as a consortium. Some libraries have been keen to start buying and not been able to because not migrated. We could do a two-part migration. All EBL content would be moved to Ebook Central platform, which would allow the consortium to be migrated in mid-August. And when ebrary is ready, we could move that portion. Do we really want to do this? This would be an interface change.
  •  MyiLibrary is also migrating to Ebook Central, but don't know the time frame – seems to be lagging more than ebrary.
  • DRM is more friendly on the new platform than what people encounter with EBL. In that case, change would make public services happier. Patrons not as disgruntled trying to get into something. Haven't heard about impact for walk-in access at this point.
  • ProQuest knows took DDA money away to go to Wiley because easier to access (DRM-free).
  • If we go forward with mid-August implementation, we could have a follow-up for questions and answers. Neil Sorenson has offered training/demos. We could schedule several before roll-out so that each person has an opportunity for more information.
  • We don't anticipate changes to records management. Each institution would activate in the CZ. All the URLs would hop over for some time – 5 years or so.
  • Institutional members and the Alliance central account would go together, and it would affect all titles. We now have a path to move forward.
  •  Changes to titles. It's possible in DDA to have a book profiled with certain access, and then a publisher makes changes.
  • For example, an Alliance book had been changed to 1user. And since there were 4 copies = 4 simultaneous users. Have there been turnaways? Yes. Have there been conversations with Neil? Proactively, we should be notified when the access has changed.
  • There have been a couple of issues. One is that no STLs allowed items are ending up in the Alliance pool. There are a couple things to do in this case. EBL has the ability to do a check and remove titles periodically that meet certain criteria. We could have a sweep to process a file and delete from Alma. Another piece is that YBP does the profiling and then sends to EBL. EBL could do the check at that point and then only activate those records. But YBP thinks they're still in our pool, so we need to update YBP. YBP is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the pool.
  • Institutions buy titles outside the DDA. Would sweeps impact those purchases? No.
  •   There were three handouts with data. Kathi will be putting them online and will send links.

ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER

  • Ebook Central.
    • Find out if migration cause an impact for walk-in access?
    • Determine which implementation of Ebook Central will be selected (partial, with EBL migrating in mid-August, or full).
    • Schedule training/demos with Neil Sorenson – several before roll-out.
  • Handouts.
    • Post handouts online and send links to representatives.

4. Alma Analytics for collections.

Jill and Kathi provided an update and review of consortial collection analysis and the Alliance's needs.

  • Overview.
    • We spent the majority of time getting to a place where we can anonymize the patron data for running circulation reports across the institutions. Many institutions have regulations in place that patron information can't be shared outside institutions. It took about 8 months working with Ex Libris to get this resolved and working for most institutions, and we think it works for everyone, now. This is important for consortial-level analytics.
    • We have also been working on testing reports. This is difficult because of the length of time and the extent of what we're trying to do. It may take hours for a report to run before it's generated. It would be better to pull smaller sets of data and then use APIs to link together. We figured out how to do this in some places, but not across the board.
  • Issues.
    • Institutions migrated data differently so that there isn't consistent data to pull. The process involves trying to pull a report, seeing deficits, and then coming back to groups/institutions to talk about what's missing and what's needed to have usable reports. Two main discrepancy areas are material type and vendor.
    • Program managers were the only ones allowed to run NZ reports. However, the ability to credential a small group allowed to run consortial NZ reports could be coming soon.
  • USTATS rolling into Alma.
    • We may need to come up with best practices for configuration and set up.
    • At the moment, the only thing for auto-SUSHI process is JR1. We can load DR1 and BR1, but we're very limited in what we can do with COUNTER reports.
    • Most institutions are using COUNTER 4, and COUNTER is in the process of developing COUNTER 5, which will impact what we can do and what we can manage.
    • Ex Libris has committed to migrate the data from USTATS, but have they committed to migrating the SUSHI information and settings? Not sure. Need to find out.
    • When will USTATS be rolled into Alma? Was supposed to happen over the summer but think has been pushed to fourth quarter.
  • Types of reports.
    • Could pull database usage/trends, journals usage, etc., for institutions that had set them up.
    • We need to come up with a shared criteria and how to define things. For example, one report was high circulation. That number of “high” could be different for different institutions – small vs large. Need to decide what baseline criteria would be for pulling reports and then figure out how to pull and make them.
    • Alliance reports be run locally or at NZ level. If the report is in Shared folders, it can be run locally. If create a report in IZ level, program managers could run in NZ level to see if applies. Recommend to save reports and then edit them.
  • Overlapping work in Center of Excellence Analytics subgroups.
    • Fulfillment and resource sharing looking at reports and data structure to understand use. The group most interested in that is also interested in use by call number, which would also be useful for shared content.
    • There's also a huge demand for some level of collaborative records work done on behalf of institutions. Usage reports/analytics – know what's activated, what's been done. Reporting in NZ only on institutional data – not done on NZ data. Need to work on how to tell when including NZ data.
  • Is there an anticipated time frame to have a fully robust system? No. We originally thought maybe in a year, but we encountered problems that took time.
  • One of team's goals is a framework for cooperative collection analysis; will dovetail in coming year.

ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER

  • Determine shared criteria and how to define things for different reporting structures.

5. Alma e-resources.

Corey provided an update and discussion of the Consortial Alma Collection Development Working Group, whose charge was to look at the NZ license infrastructure and see how we can use it.

  • The network structure makes working with the NZ licenses difficult.
    • NZ licenses as Alma is currently constructed cannot interact directly with IZ collections. We can't create an NZ license and activate an IZ collection using the license. We have to create something where both the collection and the license managed in the NZ.
    • There's a very small subset of licenses that are negotiated by the Alliance for which we could activate in NZ and use licenses. We did the production test with the DDA collection because it's managed in the NZ.
  • Along the way, we examined the idea of contributed CZ collections for Alliance-negotiated packages where the list isn't already in the CZ. This is something the Alliance would need to pursue, and which might go over to Collaborative Workforce. It'd be a unique title list but benefit to institutions not to have to manage own local collections.
  • Functionality.
    • Currently the license display in Primo configures licenses to display as configured in NZ, which may be different than IZ licenses. We would prefer the IZ display preferences to take precedent over the NZ display preferences to allow consistency for institutions' preferences. Opened a case with Ex Libris to change this.
    • The system is built with the assumption that the entity is doing end-to-end workflow centrally. So, if there were to be something managed for an institution, it would be an end-to-end process. There are two workflows. One treats acquisition as it occurs in institutions – but that will not trickle down to IZ. Another workflow starts with the license and then hand enter pricing for libraries, etc., and then that will show in IZ areas.
    • A middle-ground exploration could be decoupling in the NZ, allowing licenses to live in the NZ analogous to bib records, and then attach to record in the IZ. We have requested this functionality and will see what comes.
  • Reports.
    • The Shared Content website has the mid-term progress report, and we're working on a final wrap-up report. The midterm report lays out most of what had been described.
  • Q&A.
    • If an Alliance-level negotiated resource is in the NZ, what is the problem populating it in the IZ? There's no way to link an NZ license record to an IZ collection. Locally-managed collections can't see NZ licenses; they can only see NZ licenses in the POLs, which is not great and there are other problems. Ex Libris' thinking on how licenses are supposed to be used is different from other ERM systems.
    • Did the group get feedback in terms of display in Primo? Why is it located where it is? Got some initial feedback of why it looks the way it looks. The link to the license appears with each collection, which means it needs to be in the “View It” tab (iframe) and not “Details.” Also, some items have multiple e-collections, which would need to reflect the respective licenses.
    • Did you get a sense for how many institutions are displaying licenses? No, we didn't get much response. Someone in the group looked at the institutions, and there aren't that many – maybe a handful have it turned on.

6. Open discussion.

The team asked representatives for feedback and thoughts regarding future planning, communication, and other questions or comments.

  • Team members asked the representatives for feedback about how communication has occurred over the past year and if they had advice for improvement.
  • One person liked the reports that come out – may not understand relevance and importance at the time, but reports are helpful.
  • Questions and answers.
    • How does the Shard Content Team communicate with other teams?
      • The Policy & Coordination team has a monthly hour-long conference call during which chairs and managers meet with the council past-chair to talk about what the teams are doing and how to collaborate. These will be moving to quarterly meetings.
      • Also, in the last structure, the program managers worked independently. Over the last year and a half, they have been building ways to work together behind the scenes. There's an expectation that there would be reps in group activities who come from a perspective that's not the “home” team's POV (i.e., SCT brings in CCD reps, etc.)
    • One representative requested a visual option showing the overlap of the work performed by groups, such as a VENN diagram
    • Another rep mentioned receiving questions from selectors about what publishers are in the DDA, but can't find a quick answer. FAQ not updated in a while.
      • Content online has been updated, but will fix and send out link.
    • Is there coordination in the surveys that go out? They're all important but sometimes feel like there's constant survey work and lead time may be difficult to accommodate.
      • There's no coordination around surveys, but will list as an item to be worked on.
    • Did you get a sense of why people have not put up licenses?
      • There was some resistance because of how licenses are tied to things. It's time-consuming and the end user doesn't care, but ILL people care. And some get questions about rights and reserves that are part of licenses. Some public are caring about it, but haven't had the time.
    • Could the group have a place where they've translated the licenses and grab a spreadsheet?
      • This could be feedback to Ex Libris: if couldn't directly link to IZ collections, need a better way to share. Right now, we can import a file, but terms are limited. But we can't export in a way that could import.
      • Coding the license in a way that looks like it would be input into Alma would require a discussion of collaborative work.
      • Our advice is to start with local licenses because then an Alliance solution wouldn't disrupt earlier work. Also, not sure if want to do the work of creating alternatives while also doing the work of trying to get it fixed.
      • UW has created licenses, and there might be a way to talk about how to share – with the caveat that UW has its own coding practices. It's something to consider; could take screenshots to share examples and determine if acceptable.
      • There's also been some discussion about licenses on a listserv about how people are using license records. Other institutions are creating dummy licenses with limited terms. They have license records for a common set of terms (coursepacks, ILLs, etc.), then attach the license terms for collections. In this way, they're not coded to a license, but coded to general terms that most licenses have.
    • HathiTrust question.
      • HathiTrust is at the bottom of what representatives wanted, but Council requested more information. SCT is asking Council if we need to proceed. The impression is that faculty are asking libraries about it, and some Council members are asking Kathi if the Alliance can get it cheaper. SCT will be educating Council about what HathiTrust is, the costs, etc., and then ask if we should continue.
    • Some representatives mentioned streaming media – do we need to discuss? Are there ideas about what the Alliance may play as a role? What other resources are reps using?
      • Some using Kanopy and looking at differences and costs (several running trials – DDA, one-offs, evidence-driven, certain publishers, etc.). Kanopy is rolling out perpetual access on about 40% of its list. Some are using Kanopy for hosting locally digitized stuff. One issue is that the shared platform doesn't allow multiple licenses, which mean that they had to turn all walk-in use licenses off for Kanopy.
    • Would it be worth having a sharing session around streaming media – have a session for libraries to share what they're doing. Is that of interest?
      • Yes.

ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER

  • Ebooks – DDA publishers
    • Update list of DDA publishers throughout Shared Content areas on website.
  • Surveys.
    • Work on how to coordinate surveys that go out to representatives from Alliance teams.
  • Sharing license information.
    • Consider whether/how to share license information in a central location.
  • Streaming media.
    • Arrange for a session for libraries to share what they're doing.

LIST OF ALL ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER

Last Copy Policy

  • General. Review feedback and discuss. Survey representatives with additional information and requests for feedback.
  • Implementation. Provide clarity about how much flexibility an institution has regarding workflows, staffing, and implementation.
  • Lists. Provide additional guidance to make sharing lists more useful.
  • Alliance impact. Provide an advisory statement to consider collective collection for impact, but not a mandatory policy.
  • Analytics. Communication and work with Ex Libris to improve analytics in order to more easily identify last copies.

3-Copy Threshold

  • Timing. Possible considerations include working with D&D Team to consider impacts of courier and loan periods in regard to 3-Copy Threshold.
  • Analysis. Is there an interest in performing a new collection analysis to determine an “x”-copy number?

Ebook Working Group

  • Post handouts online and send links to representatives.
  • Update list of DDA publishers throughout Shared Content areas on website.

Ebook Central

  • Find out if migration cause an impact for walk-in access?
  • Determine which implementation of Ebook Central will be selected (partial, with EBL migrating in mid-August, or full).
  • Schedule training/demos with Neil Sorenson – several before roll-out.

Center for Excellence: Analytics

  • Determine shared criteria and how to define things for different reporting structures.

Surveys

  • Work on how to coordinate surveys that go out to representatives from Alliance teams.

Licenses

  • Consider whether/how to share license information in a central location.

Streaming media

  • Arrange for a session for libraries to share what they're doing.