Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Development
November 18, 2013
Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room (Old)
9:00 AM-12:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, Christy Coombs, Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Becky Albitz, Peggy O’Kane, Lanny Lumbert, Toni Katz, Brian Damien
Sara Amato (called in), Andy Breeding (called in), Rick Lugg (called in)
1. Project Updates
a. Disclosing Step One retention commitments – local catalogs, OCLC & MaineCat
Sara reported that, except for a few reversals, all retention commitments have been added in local catalogs for Commit To Retain (CTR) titles in Retention Scenario Step One. MSCS have now exceeded the milestone of one million retention commitments.
Sara will be sending a list of UMaine’s approximately 269,000 CTR titles to OCLC this week and hopes the commitments will appear soon. The commitments should appear in MaineCat soon after.
b. HathiTrust membership update – present Colby login example
Colby College is now an official partner of the HathiTrust. Clem is currently working on a press release to announce the news. Clem presented an example of a HathiTrust Public Domain title which in order to fully download required the user to login (as a patron of a HathiTrust partner library). Colem commented that the login screen was similar to existing Colby logins and was Shibboleth at work.
The Committee agreed it was exciting news and the login was a straightforward process. Toni asked how users will know when a title is in-copyright (and not viewable). Clem showed how he had restricted his search to ‘full view only’ titles, but if you unchecked this it included in-copyright titles, which were not viewable, but users can conduct full-text searches to search the text of the book. Deb commented that the ability to conduct full-text searches was very useful.
Matthew reported that UMaine were further behind in the partnership process because of the continued delays in installing Shibboleth (required for authentication). However, it is hoped that these issues should be resolved by the end of this week.
c. E-book-On-Demand & Print On Demand investigations
Matthew presented a test record in MaineCat with links to Google Books and HathiTrust and to a Print-On-Demand request form for users to request a print copy. Since the November 13th Project Team meeting the form also includes an option for a user to search for whether there is a physical copy of the title already available at a MaineCat library. Sara confirmed for Matthew that she was using the first 30 characters of a title to search for the title. The find copy in OCLC option uses OCLC number to search for the title, but Sara commented that she was considering using title for this as well. Sara hopes to have the service ready to go fully live by Thanksgiving. Matthew commented that he will present the EOD and POD links and request form to the MSCS Directors’ Council at their November 21st meeting and that there may be some requested changes Sara will need to incorporate.
d. MSCS presentations
MSCS representatives have been reporting on the work of the project. Matthew and Deb presented at the NELA Conference. Deb and Becky presented at the Charleston Conference. Both sets of presentations went well and there were some interesting questions asked.
While at Charleston, Clem and Becky met with Kathryn Harnish and Sara Randall (OCLC) regarding OCLC’s Collection Evaluation tool which MSCS have an agreement to receive deferred access to. Becky reported that Kathryn is keen for Matthew to have a sandbox version of the tool to test. Clem commented that a lot of the group functionality that MSCS would need is still not available. Matthew commented that he hopes (once the functionality is available) the tool could be used post-grant to compare the holdings of MSCS libraries with the holdings of joining Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) libraries. Clem went on that it will be useful for OCLC to have smaller libraries like the MSCS partners to test extensively the tool before it goes live and identify issues OCLC or larger libraries involved in the pilot testing might not have run into.
e. Reports due for Advisory Board & IMLS
The six month report MSCS are required to provide the Advisory Board is due at the end of the month. Matthew has produced a draft version that he circulated to the Directors for comment. He will send the Committee a copy of the final version. Matthew commented that in writing this document it’s clear that MSCS have made significant progress especially when you cast your mind back to that first meeting with SCS in February 2013.
Matthew will use the Advisory Board report as the basis for the IMLS performance report which is due by the end of the year.
f. Grant extension application & national event
In September 2013 MSCS submitted a request to IMLS for a no-cost extension to use underspent grant funds on (in part) the organization of an extended Print Archive Network (PAN) event at ALA Annual 2014. Deb received an email response from IMLS last week asking for additional information and she and Matthew are currently trying to get to grips with what is required.
2. MOU requirements for replacing lost or damaged materials – practical actions
Now that MSCS libraries have commitments disclosed in local catalogs, there are likely to be questions about replacing lost or damaged CTR titles. MSCS libraries have agreed to CTR a title for 15 years and the MSCC MOU states that “Libraries are expected to follow their usual workflows and procedures for identifying, repairing, and replacing retained materials. Original artifactual copies are always preferred, but facsimiles are acceptable when necessary.” Matthew commented that obviously in practical terms there are going to be problems/issues with specific titles where it is not appropriate to keep the book or the record despite the MSCC designation.
Deb reported that she has been documenting examples of titles that she feels do not need replacing, so the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) can make batch policy decisions later on about whether replacements are required. One potential criterion for not replacing might be that an exact edition of the book is public domain in HathiTrust. However, this criterion won’t apply to all titles, as Deb reported that one title she looked at the engravings were not as readable in the HathiTrust version so in this case she would want a replacement hard copy.
Matthew suggested that other Committee members follow Deb’s example and document examples of CTR titles that they wouldn’t want to replace and the reason(s) why. But, instead of waiting until post-grant to look at this issue again, at future Committee meetings different examples should be presented for discussion and a set of criteria can be developed.
The Committee agreed to document examples of titles they don’t feel it is appropriate to replace and the reason(s) why. These examples will be discussed at future Committee meetings with the aim of developing rules that can be applied in bulk.
3. Retention Scenario Step Two
a. Review usage charts from SCS – agree on number of CTR title-holding required across group
At the last Committee meeting, the Committee had discussed how usage levels might be used as a factor in deciding how many title-holdings of a CTR title-set should be retained across the MSCS group.
Following these discussions Matthew and Deb spoke with Andy about what the Committee had in mind for charts and graphs showing usage. They first asked Andy to provide aggregate circulation for title-sets. Matthew presented the example of how this was displayed in the charts Andy had sent. After reviewing this chart both Deb and Matthew felt that the ranges of circulation for example, “10 or fewer”, “20 or fewer”…would have made it difficult to apply rules because there was overlap in the ranges, for example, some title-sets in the “20 or fewer “ would also be in the “10 or fewer” range. Deb and Matthew instead asked to see a a new version (which Matthew presented to the Committee) that showed average usages per title-set in mutually exclusive ranges that could be used to say, for example:
● Any title-sets with an average of 1-3 circulations MSCS will CTR two title-holding across the group (exactly two: not minimum or maximum, which really doesn’t work for MSCS). But, title-sets with an average of 10-15 circulation MSCS will CTR three title-holdings.
The Committee discussed what the different numbers referred to in the charts, particularly that the lower of the two numbers referred to title-sets and the higher is title holdings which are essentially the copies at the different libraries. Matthew showed how the different ranges were broken down:
● 0
● 1
● 2-3
● 4-5
● 6-7
● 8-10
● 11-15
● 16+
Clem commented that he could see how the second chart with average usage data could be used and that it made sense until the high circulation title-sets which could be bestsellers like Danielle Steel works at the publics, so in this case date of last circulation would be important. Matthew responded that based on feedback at the last Committee date of last use also needed to be taken into consideration. Matthew had Andy produce charts showing last circulation dates. Matthew suggested that perhaps using the date of last use MSCS may want to break down the highest average usage ranges further and used to say for example:
● If the latest date of a title-set usage is over ten years ago, then retain two instead of three title-holdings.
A discussion then ensued regarding the difficulty of using date of last usage. Matthew proposed a simple solution might be to just CTR two title-holdings for each CTR title-set across the group–no matter what the usage. Deb responded that perhaps title-sets in the range “0-1” and “1-3” there should only be one title-holding retained as these had extremely low usage in their history.
The Committee agreed that MSCS will CTR ONE title-holding across the MSCS group for each CTR title-set in usage ranges “0-1” and “1-3”. MSCS are going to CTR TWO title-holdings across the MSCS group for each CTR title-set in the ranges “3-5” plus.
The Committee went on to agree that title-sets that have zero aggregate circulations (SCS had already taken out of scope for MSCS to review separately) will NOT receive retention commitments. Matthew will request from SCS lists of these titles (by library), so they can be used by libraries to review their own collections. However, since the meeting the Committee have agreed to CTR title-sets with zero circulations that fall into the local protected category, where there are 9 or fewer OCLC holding, and special collections title-holdings (including on-special collections copies to ensure there is also a circulating copy). These decisions are consistent with the Retention Scenario Step One retention criteria.
b. Discuss allocation factors & options – develop a test allocation algorithm
Matthew commented that having decided how many title-holdings that needs to be CTR across the MSCS group the Committee need to develop with SCS an allocation algorithm for how retention responsibility will be allocated across the group. Or, to put in practical terms, if the agreed title-holding amount for a title-set with four average usages is two, but there are three title-holdings across the group, which of the three libraries retains the title? At previous Committee meetings, potential allocation factors had been discussed, for example, because of a disparity of loan periods Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin, always retain a title-holding between them (whenever they own a CTR title), using subject strengths, the Maine State Library’s desire to always CTR local protected titles, and Colby’s extra storage space. Matthew commented that now was the time to have some actual allocation scenarios to test, perhaps starting with an algorithm and then at a lower level some ‘horse trading’ (as had been seen at the SCS project the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI)) may be required.
Clem commented that ‘horse trading’ was required at the MI-SPI project because they had a disparate group of participants. Peggy reported that (in terms of preferable loans periods) the Maine State Library is discussing enacting an ILL policy that allows requestors from academic libraries to keep items for the same period as the requestor’s library allows.
Matthew asked Andy and Rick to discuss what factors and algorithm methods they had used on other projects. Andy discussed allocation equality trying to fairly balance both withdrawal and retention responsibilities, with some ‘horse trading’ required if libraries feel that the numbers that come out are not fair and require modifying to meet local needs. Another method is having the algorithm based on overall collection size. Andy commented that both methods have their pros and cons. A third option (which is their recommended model) is a constant ratio of retention commitments to in-scope titles (control for different collection sizes). This takes into account the considerable burden of committing to retain a title for 15 years. Deb commented that libraries will have a lot less commitments to make in Scenario Step two compared with Scenario Step One.
Rick commented that he sees two separate allocation processes, one for where one title-holding is required to be retained, and other where two title-holdings are required that is a more complicated process.
The Committee discussed the use of the CBB loan period and Colby’s extra storage space (with their new off-site storage facility) as retention allocation factors. Matthew asked what factors would be taken into consideration (in situations where Colby didn’t hold the title) when deciding whether Bates or Bowdoin would be allocated responsibility. Could it just be based on the allocation algorithms used previously by SCS? Joan commented that perhaps circulation could be a factor for example; if a title has circulated more at Bowdoin then they would be allocated responsibility because their patrons would require more immediate access. Joan recognized that this could be too complicated. Becky felt that because of deliveries between CBB circulation was not an issue. Matthew commented that in the past the Committee had discussed whether high circulation would mean that an item would be in a worse physical condition.
Matthew asked the Committee to consider allocation factors for the remaining titles not owned by CBB. Brian responded that Portland Public would volunteer to CTR fiction. Fiction (particularly children’s and older) is also a priority at Bangor Public. Brian commented that Portland weeds their children’s collection. Peggy commented that the Maine State Library would CTR all titles in the local protected category and also any fiction not already CTR by CBB.
Clem asked whether geography should be taken into consideration i.e. ensure responsibility is allocated across the state to facilitate access. The Committee agreed with Brian’s response that geography should not be a problem because of the next day delivery in Maine.
Matthew asked what factors might be taken into consideration when UMaine and the University of Southern Maine were the only libraries to hold a title. Deb suggested that an equitable model similar to Bates and Bowdoin (see above). Lanny commented that that at USM there could be opportunities for weeding multi-copies of the same title that are stored at their different locations.
Rick asked the Committee to back up and define what MSCS are actually trying to achieve with allocation. Deb responded that they want allocation to take into account the different priorities of the MSCS libraries like loan periods and subject strengths. Deb went on that it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the numbers of title-sets requiring allocation once CBB allocations have been assigned their commitments.
Clem commented that while MSCS libraries still have the services of Sara, it would be useful for libraries to make outside additional retention commitments, for example, Bangor Public could CTR all children fiction titles. Matthew commented that Barbara is particularly keen for subject to be used in the analysis.
The Committee agreed that MSCS’s first attempt at an allocation algorithm will be that for every title-set where Colby own a title-holding they will ALWAYS be assigned the retention responsibility (because of their additional storage space). In cases where Colby don’t own a CTR title-holding, but either Bates or Bowdoin do then they will be allocated responsibility by SCS using their established allocation equity mode (relative proportion of CTR titles to in-scope titles).
4. Journals/series/serials analysis
a. Local protected category title lists – review results of list analysis
The Committee had agreed at their October 9th that any serial titles in the local protected category would be CTR (as had been decided with monographs). However, after reviewing their respective lists Deb and Becky reported that they had decided to not CTR some of the titles because for example, the items are missing/lost/deleted, available online, microfilm only (which MSCS had agreed were out of scope), only brief runs (one volume only), directories, and they had existing short-term retention polices (e.g. for local newspapers).
Also, since then based on observations from Joan, Sara produced another holdings overlap spreadsheet that this time included protected titles also and identified significantly more titles (~900 rather than ~100). An interesting example is the “Frommer’s Portable Maine Coast” which is held by many, and a title that MSCS would have taken off the monographs CTR list because it is Frommers. Becky commented that ‘Down East Magazine’ is an example of a title that all libraries will have copies of.
Matthew asked the Committee whether, in the light of this analysis, they wanted to reevaluate their decision to not make group decisions. Matthew went on that if they did to decide to make group decisions, the Committee would need to develop a set of criteria for deciding how retention responsibility is allocated, which, without the support of SCS might be more of a manual process. Matthew commented that in his opinion, group retention decisions were more in keeping with the essence of the MSCS grant.
Lanny commented that perhaps he was looking at the wrong list because there were Maine documents in his (USM) that he removed from receiving a CTR. Matthew responded that they would have been in there because they had been catalogued as a serial and that Sara had not removed anything from the lists unless given the approval by a Committee member. Deb commented that she had actually CTR some Maine documents.
Peggy commented that it was enough to know it was being CTR somewhere in the MSCS group. Joan asked whether it made sense for MSCS libraries to CTR the same titles. However, she went on that it could be too complicated to make group decisions. Clem suggested that it might be easier in the short-term to make blanket commitments and afterwards allow libraries to go title-by-title and say we don’t want to keep this title and look at whether other MSCS libraries hold it (possibly sending them volumes to complete a full-set so there is one in the State). Matthew commented that while the Committee is looking at these lists and they are still fresh in the mind it makes more sense to start the work now (especially as MSCS begin to complete the monograph work). Joan responded that in order to be able to do this comparison work now, the Committee members would need to know what each of the MSCS libraries had agreed to CTR.
The Committee agreed that MSCS libraries would be set a deadline of 10 days (Wednesday November 27th) to have their filtered local protected spreadsheet lists to only include those titles the libraries want to CTR. It is recommended that libraries leave in titles that should receive a CTR, but are likely to be held by other MSCS libraries so group decisions can be made as to whom retention responsibility is allocated. Once the lists have been submitted to Sara (cc: Matthew) she will run title comparisons and create a merged list of commitments which will be sent out to the Committee to review in time for their next meeting in December.
Becky commented that she is going to review her local protected category list again and resubmit it. She will reconsider including random titles removed previously. In such cases, MSCS can look at whether a full-set could be created and housed at one of the MSCS libraries.
Toni asked whether MSCS had made a decision to CTR both a special collections and ‘in stacks’ copy. Matthew responded that no such decision had been made, but the responsibility for doing so would rest with the Committee should they agree that this is required. Toni provided for Clem some example of titles at Colby which were both in special collections and in the stacks.
The Committee agreed that there wouldn’t be a requirement to CTR both special collections and ‘in stacks’ copies, since most serials don’t circulate anyway.
b. Compared with vendor sets title lists – review results of list analysis
Most Committee members had submitted to Matthew and Sara their filtered “NotInVendorSetsOCLCunder50” lists prior to today’s meeting. However, Matthew asked the Committee whether they also wanted to also make group decisions on titles in this category.
Deb agreed to look at those 90 titles which overlapped in the “NotInVendorSetsOCLCunder50” category and make recommendations to the Committee at the next meeting. The Committee agreed not to conduct any weeding of serials in this category until Deb has completed her work.
Christy reported that in reviewing Bangor Public’s serial lists she had identified material that she thought Bowdoin and Colby might be interested in.
Joan asked the Committee what had been decided about reference material. Matthew responded that reference material had not been considered separately which meant that depending on whether the specific titles met the MSCS retention criteria they could be both in the CTR and not committed to retain categories. Joan commented that at Bowdoin they would like to conduct some weeding of reference material. The Committee recommended that Bowdoin delays any weeding until it knows what it is allocated to retain in Retention Scenario Step Two. Deb commented that serial reference material at UMaine is covered by in-house retention policies so she had not included them in her filtered CTR list.
c. Holdings overlap within MSCS group – review decision to not make group decisions
See above.
d. Process for disclosing retention commitments
Sara reported that at the November 6th MSCS Technical Services Committee they had discussed the process for disclosing retention commitments and that because holdings for serials will need to be individually encoded for those titles that do not already have closed holdings in the record disclosing commitments for journals/serials will be more of a manual process. The Technical Services Committee have agreed to complete this work (with assistance from Sara) and Sharon Fitzgerald had already closed the holdings for University of Maine’s CTR titles. Sara confirmed for Toni that this work would only be required for open holdings. Commitments for monograph series will be disclosed in the same way as other monographs.
5. Date of next meeting
Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll for the Committee to vote on the date and time of the next Committee meeting.