Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee
November 10, 2022
10:00 am – 11:00 am
Attendees: Jeff Eastman, Meg Gray, Marjorie Hassen, Ana Noriega, Shiloh Parker, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Krystie Wilfong
Absentees: Patrick Layne, Sarah Skawinski
- Review of Existing MSCC
Matthew asked the Committee to consider what they hoped to achieve with the review of MSCC commitments (i.e., what’s the end goal). For example: whether the aim is to reduce commitments in large numbers or just making minor modifications like has been done previously, focusing on specific publishers.
Matthew went on to share some potential goals including:
- Reducing retention burden on libraries & freeing up space.
- Removing commitments on categories of titles MSCC agrees are not “retention worthy”.
- Removing commitments on categories of titles MSCC agrees no longer meet local or collective needs .
- Removing commitments on items that have not been used since commitments were made.
- Extending commitments on titles MSCC agrees still needs protecting in keeping with original goals of the program.
Matthew clarified for Deb that any review of commitments would include all MSCC commitments, both those made in the original grant project, and those subsequently agreed as part of the 2019 work. All MSCC commitments currently expire on the same date in 2028.
A goal for Deb was to review lessons learned and assess the long-term viability of the MSCC program. The results of this assessment could be published for other programs to learn from. The assessment would include a comparison of the numbers of commitments agreed originally with what remains today. Including looking at some of the main reasons/categories for commitments being removed, such as items flagged as missing, damaged, or lost. MSCC could then report on the percentage of commitments remaining vs. removed.
Krystie agreed with Deb’s suggestion and as part of the assessment would like to see MSCC gather and report on quantitative and qualitative information on how much space libraries have been able to free up because of MSCC commitments. Krystie would also like to see a discussion of removing commitments on non-circulating items, particularly those in special collections locations.
Jeff reported on a weeding project being undertaken at the Maine State Library and that the MSCC commitment status was a factor in the project. Jeff was checking for other holdings of titles in both URSUS and MaineCat to ensure there were at least two copies of a title before it was flagged as a withdrawal candidate.
After comments from Ana and Marjorie the Committee discussed whether, as a first step, it made sense to confirm that each of the libraries represented on the call should at least indicate whether their institution is willing to consider extending some of their MSCC commitments beyond 2028. While Marjorie and Krystie felt like their respective institutions would be willing to consider extending commitments, but for Krystie that is still some hesitation and need for MSCC to reconsider retention criteria. Deb was unsure whether in the long-term MSCC was the best strategy for managing print collections. While recognizing it was impossible to know whether titles committed as part of MSCC would have been saved from weeding anyway, without the need for MSCC commitments. And whether MSCC was worth the time spent on it before extending commitments. Krystie felt that the research and assessment of MSCC should happen first, before deciding whether to extend commitments, because the one would inform the other. Deb felt there needed to be a broad review of the whole concept of the program, including renewing commitments.
Marjorie commented on how there were no guarantees that libraries would independently keep materials in the future.
Marjorie wondered whether it made sense to first agree on whether libraries were willing to expand commitments before spending time on reviewing the program.
There appeared to be a consensus on doing a program assessment/research project first that would inform the review of commitments. The Committee discussed the sort of data/functionality that would assist in the analysis including:
- Circulation stats
- Number of retention commitments made at the start of the process and those still committed now. It might make sense to do this comparison at the bib level as commitments were added to multiple copies in the first phase of MSCC. The feeling from CBB representatives on the call was that any data analysis should be done now before the migration from Sierra to Alma begins next year. It might make sense to run the CBB lists together. URSUS libraries could be handled together and Minerva as a group and Portland Portland on its own. There’s likely to be opportunities to have a set of procedures that everyone can follow to ensure there’s consistency in the data comparisons.
- Comparing with OCLC and other shared print programs including EAST, HathiTrust Shared Print Program, and WEST. And whether fewer MSCC copies need to be kept if another shared print program had made commitments to the same title.
- Availability of digital copies, including from the Internet Archive and commercial packages.
- Quantitative and qualitative information on how much space libraries have been able to free up because of MSCC commitments.
- Matthew suggested that this information could be gathered in a membership survey.
- Krystie also asked that members be asked about their frustrations with MSCC commitments as well.
- Matthew suggested asking members about their willingness to consider extending commitments.
- And to also solicit suggestions for categories of titles they feel should no longer be retained
The Committee briefly discussed how much of the data analysis work can be done by running ILS reports in Sierra. And how much will require additional analysis support. For instance, only GreenGlass would provide a comprehensive comparison with OCLC holdings overlap and the costs of this tool make it not feasible for this project. The Google Sheet Add-On developed by Sara Amato allows for limited comparisons up to 1,000 titles in a given setting but would not assist at the scale of analyzing the 1.5 million MSCC commitments. But it might be possible to use other tools like Gold Rush to run comparisons with other shared print program’s commitments.
Action Item: Matthew will schedule a meeting with the MSCC Collections & Operations and representatives from the MSCC Data Group.
Matthew will also work on an assessment survey to send to members and share with the Collections & Operations Committee for feedback.
The Committee also agreed that the assessment of monograph commitments (including special collections) should occur first, before moving on to serial and journal commitments next so as to not lose sight of this work.
- Updates
The Partnership for Shared Book Collections has developed a document to support libraries talking about weeding (https://toolkit.sharedprint.org/communications ) with different stakeholder groups. Including not using the term weeding!
Matthew thanked those on the Committee who had beta tested the Google Sheet Add-On for searching shared print commitments in OCLC. Matthew is hopeful the tool will be rolled out in full soon.
- Next Meeting
The Committee is due to meet next in February. Matthew will send a Doodle Poll.