Maine Shared Collections Strategy Directors’ Council
November 21, 2013
Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Linda Lord, Marjorie Hassen, Barbara McDade, David Nutty (called in), Deb Rollins, Joyce Rumery, Gene Wiemers, Matthew Revitt
Absentees: Steve Podgajny
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. Retention Scenario Step One commitments – fine-tuning of commitments
Since the last Directors’ meeting the MSCS Collection Development Committee have completed the list of specific publishers to fine tune the retention commitments to remove titles like textbooks and popular fiction paperback books that libraries didn’t feel it was appropriate to Commit To Retain (CTR) for 15 years. Matthew commented this didn’t mean that libraries had to get rid of these titles–-just that they have the freedom to weed them from their collections should they so choose.
MSCS System Librarian Sara Amato has been making these reversals where commitments had already been added in the local catalogs.
The Collection Committee also agreed Sara should batch reverse commitments on:
● Items which were deleted after Sustainable Collection Services were provided with the collections data in February 2013.
● Items which are missing or lost.
● Title-holdings which were mistakenly included in the analysis for example, government documents or the location “owsc” for the University of Maine’s Women’s Studies Collection.
The analysis work for Retention Scenario Step One (titles held by 1 or 2 MSCS libraries) is now complete.
ii. Retention Scenario Step Two – criteria development, amount of committed to retain title-holdings to be held across group & allocation discussions
In Retention Scenario Step Two (titles held by 3 or more MSCS libraries) the Collection Committee agreed to look first at titles with the following criteria:
● Publication Year < 2003
● MSCS Institutions holding > 2
● Circulating Titles only
● No Special collections
● No HathiTrust Public Domain
● No title-sets with zero aggregate uses
● 10+ US Holdings
The Committee decided that these titles should be CTR because they had recorded uses. At their November 18th meeting the Committee looked at usage ranges to help decide how many title-holdings (essentially the group of copies held at an individual library) should be committed across the MSCS group. The Committee agreed to retain ONE title-holding across the MSCS group for each CTR title-set with less than 4 uses and TWO title-holdings across the MSCS group for each CTR title-set with 4 or more uses.
Having decided how many title-holdings that need to be CTR across the group, the Committee also needed to agree on an algorithm for how the retention responsibility will be allocated across the libraries. This is an additional decision MSCS have to make in Step Two because the titles are held by 3 or more MSCS libraries.
The Committee debated a number of potential factors such as the disparity in partner loan periods (which may mean CBB always retain a title-holding where they have a CTR title-set); subject strengths, Colby’s extra storage space, and the State Library’s desire to CTR all local protected category titles. The Committee agreed that the 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 to one of those libraries using SCS’s algorithm that uses a constant ratio of retention commitments to in-scope titles to assign commitments proportional to the number of titles being considered for retention at each library. SCS will provide MSCS with data showing how their allocation algorithm would work for these holdings and the Committee will decide if it meets MSCS needs.
The Committee still needs to agree how to allocate responsibility for those titles that are not held by Colby, Bates and Bowdoin. Based on some preliminary numbers from SCS of the approx. 97,000 title-sets that the policy is to keep one title-holding 97% are held by CBB! Also, 61,000 of the 97,000 are held by Colby. And Bates & Bowdoin are split between them approx. 33, 000 and the remainder between the other MSCS libraries is only approx. 2,700! Therefore, this algorithm would assign responsibility for most in-scope titles.
Clem asked how the University of Maine felt about potentially relying on CBB for continued access. Joyce responded that they didn’t have an issue because they can still access the titles via ILL.
Gene commented that before the shared CBB approval plans they were collecting a lot of the same materials so there is likely to be high overlap. Matthew commented that because MSCS are only analyzing titles published before 2003 (before the approval plans) there will be high overlap. The Directors commented on the large number of titles that only had one circulation in their entire history.
The Committee still have other groups of titles that decisions need to be made on, including:
● Do MSCS CTR all local protected title-sets? If so how many title-holdings (all or only some)?
● Do MSCS CTR all 9 or fewer OCLC holdings title-sets? If so how many title-holdings (all or only some)?
● Matthew noted that if the Committee decides to CTR either all local protected or all 0-9 OCLC title-sets then MSCS WILL be committing to retain some title-sets with zero aggregate circs. (as was done in Scenario Step One).
● Do MSCS want to CTR all special collections title-holdings (including on-special collections copies to ensure there is also a circulating copy)? If so how many title-holdings (all or only some)?
● Do MSCS want to NOT CTR all HathiTrust Public Domain titles – including those that meet the other CTR criteria? Or do the Committee let the other criteria take precedence and decide CTR status?
Matthew commented that he hopes the Committee can make these decisions before their next meeting, so he has asked them to send him their thoughts by Wednesday November 27th. Then he can arrange some sort of vote.
Clem commented that the decision-making process at Monday’s meeting had been surprisingly easy and uncontentious. It helps that MSCS are concerned with retention rather than weeding so a protective action rather than a potentially destructive one. Matthew commented that is where MSCS differs from most other projects SCS have worked with. Clem reported that the Northeast Regional Print Management Project are following MSCS’s example by focusing on retention.
iii. Journal analysis update – retention policy update
In addition to monographs the Collection Committee have also been analyzing serials, journals and monograph series. The MSCS approach to this has been to concentrate on making commitments on rarely held titles that are not being preserved and retained elsewhere. The Committee were also concerned with protecting local protected titles.
Some initial decisions were made, including that libraries will only CTR current holdings, so libraries are free to cancel serials (and thus any future retention commitment). Also, that although the grant application said MSCS would only look at journals in reality because of the way the material is coded (as‘s’ material type) it is not feasible or advisable to separate the different types of material. So the Committee decided to not exclude titles just because they weren’t a journal. Matthew commented that they also wanted to avoid titles falling between the cracks of the two separate analyses (monographs and serials).
The Collection Development Committee also agreed that local protected category titles would automatically receive a CTR. However, for several reasons, the Committee did not want to rubber-stamp the lists without reviewing them:
1. Directors’ comments about not wanting to make blanket commitments.
2. The Project Team wanted to take into account holdings overlap to make group retention decisions. Matthew commented that making shared decisions was what this project is all about doing.
3. Deb and Becky Albitz (Bates) in reviewing their respective local protected category lists identified some titles they didn’t feel it was appropriate to CTR for 15 years 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 issue only), directories, and had existing short-term retention polices (e.g. for local newspapers).
Gene commented that at Bates some of the titles were so rare they would have a hard time replacing them anyway and would be better off in special collections.
In light of these developments the Committee were given the freedom to use their professional judgment and not CTR local protected tittles. The Project Team also asked Sara to provide the Committee with details of the holdings overlap. Matthew recommended that libraries leave in titles that are likely to be held by other MSCS libraries so group decisions can be made as to whom retention responsibility is allocated. Matthew commented that allocation for serials will be done without the data wrangling skills of SCS. Once the lists have been submitted to Sara, she will run title comparisons and create a merged list of commitments which will be sent out to the Committee to review.
iv. OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – proposal & access update
Clem and Becky met with OCLC representatives Kathryn Harnish and Sara Randall (program manager for the evaluation tool) at Charleston to discuss the progress of the group functionality and MSCS deferred access. Matthew commented that he was particularly interested in knowing if MSCS could use the tool to compare MSCS holdings against those of new Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) members because considering that MSCS is due to end in May its use for MSCS libraries will be somewhat limited.
Clem reported that although OCLC have made progress the tool is still not complete. For example, the ability to compare the holdings of a new MSCC member with that of MSCS libraries is still not available. Matthew commented that one of the reasons he had been keen to get in contact with OCLC was that the group functionality was due to be completed by the end of 2013.
b. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. Local Catalog – loading updates & public display in OPACs
MSCS have now exceeded the one million mark for actual commitments made from Retention Scenario Step One and, except for a few reversals, all retention commitments have been added in local catalogs for titles in Retention Scenario Step One.
Sara Amato and Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) have loaded the MSCS retention statements into the URSUS OPAC. Matthew sent a message on the URSUS listserv letting libraries know that they were going to see the message in the records of MSCS libraries and what the retention statement meant. Sara has been discussing with Portland Public Library the process for implementing the display in their OPAC. CBB are waiting for their merged catalog to go live before they work on the display.
Barbara reported that some of her patrons at Bangor Public Library had been confused about the “MSCC” retention statements in URSUS and thought it meant the item was not available for loan (perhaps because it was at off-site storage). The Directors debated the text of the message on the MSCS website, how to make it less confusing for patrons, and to have the important information first because patrons were unlikely to read the whole message.
The Directors agreed that Matthew should change the text on the MSCS website to rename the title “MSCC” and start with the fact that an item is available for circulation unless otherwise specified.
ii. OCLC WorldCat – progress of batch loading Local Holding Records
On November 20th Sara submitted a file with 265,181 UMaine titles (which are going to be used as the test case for the LHR process) to have their retention commitments batch loaded into OCLC. Sara is not sure when they will be publically viewable. Because although it seems like it shouldn’t take too long, she thought the same with the reclamation. The other libraries should follow shortly, and the process should be a lot quicker on her side because she has seen all the problems (such as MEML 001s, multi linked bibs, records with 561s for archives notes…).
The Technical Services Committee also made the decision that although OCLC Shared Print symbols are set as non-suppliers, shared print monographs will also be coded (in the local holdings record (LHR) field 008), as having the lending policy of “Will not lend”. Because this can be batch loaded the Committee felt that should policies change in the future it can be easily reversed.
Clem commented that this is a major achievement because MSCS will be the first shared print group to disclose retention commitments for monographs in OCLC.
Marjorie asked Matthew to explain MSCS’s OCLC Shared Print Symbol decision and how it differed to OCLC’s recommended practice. Matthew responded that as a result of MSCS opposition to the ILL fees associated with using the OCLC Shared Print Symbol in both ILLiad and WorldCat Resource Sharing, MSCS have decided until a more acceptable model can be developed, to use two symbols on the records in OCLC: both the main symbol (which will remain requestable and so won’t affect lending) and the Shared Print Symbol (which will be a non-supplier). Matthew recognized that this option could make it seem like there are two sets of holding when there is only one. The OCLC recommended practice is that the main symbol would be replaced by the shared print symbol for shared print items, which would mean it would have to be a requestable symbol that would incur the ILL costs outlined above. Matthew went on that MSCS were only intending to use the Shared Print Symbol to flag holdings as having a commitment and that holdings were not lend any differently.
Clem commented that he hoped OCLC would take notice of the effect MSCS’s policy will have on holding levels because MSCS’s disclosure of one million commitments will make it appear like there are two million holdings.
iii. MaineCat – progress of displaying commitments
MSCS are still waiting for Innovative Interface, Inc. to implement their long-term fix to how to get the 583 commitment to display and transfer to MaineCat. In the meantime, Sara is going to use the OCLC API and JavaScript to perform a check of OCLC and display when an item is in shared print. Once the commitments are in OCLC they should also appear in MaineCat.
iv. Manual adding of commitments for serials/journals
Sara and the Technical Services Committee have been working on how to display the retention commitments for serials and journals. Holdings for serials will need to be individually encoded for those titles that do not already have closed holdings in the record, so it will be more labor intensive process than it was for monographs. However, the numbers of titles with open holdings are low enough that it shouldn’t be too time consuming. Deb reported that Sharon Fitzgerald had made 77 edits for UMaine records already.
v. CRL PAPR database – adding journal retention commitments
Now that MSCS are beginning to have retention commitments for serials/journals, Matthew has asked Sara to contact Marie Waltz from Center for Research Libraries (CRL) and provide her with a couple of examples 583′s to make sure all the information they need is there for MSCS commitments to be added to CRL’s Print Archives Preservation Registry. Matthew commented that PAPR does not include holding information for monographs (expected to use OCLC instead); but that many shared print projects were using PAPR to disclose their commitments for journals, and as such libraries were using PAPR in collection analysis to identify existing retention commitments.
c. Ebook-On-Demand & Print-On-Demand (POD) services
i. Loading HathiTrust & Google Books records
Matthew reported that this work had been slightly delayed because Sara was working on getting the added/removed commitments done in the local catalogs before the CBB merger. But Sara does now have a load table for the HathiTrust records.
ii. Review links in MaineCat, guidance & POD workflow
Matthew presented a test example MaineCat record with HathiTrust and Google Book links and link to the Print On Demand (POD) request form. Matthew commented that as requested at the last Director’s Council (August 30) the URLs for the HathiTrust and Google Books links are now hidden (thanks again to Albie Dunn at MIN) and since the last meeting the POD request form has been added.
Matthew showed how a user can chose to either view a copy in HathiTrust or download on a page-by-page basis, or download in full in Google Books.
Gene asked if it was possible to track the amount of times a user selects the Google Books vs. HathiTrust link. James responded that unfortunately this functionality is not available in MaineCat.
The Project Team are going to test the demand for the POD service using $2,000 of allocated grant funds. Based on lessons learned during this test period, they are going to be developing an ongoing business model for the service. The Project Team have agreed that because demand will probably be low and to ensure POD is up and working in the grant period a ‘low tech’ solution of a simple request email would be the best plan for now. The print request link will allow users to request a POD copy. The request will generate an email which will come to Deb and Greg Curtis at Fogler, who will review the request, and submit the order to UMaine printing services, who will send the printed copy back to Fogler Library ILL for shipping. The printed copy will be sent directly to the requester.
The only requirement at the moment for requestors is that they have a Maine postal address. Matthew commented that the Project Team had also discussed situations where a physical copy is already available at a MaineCat library. Since these discussions Sara has added the ‘Search MaineCat for an existing print copy’ option and for non-Maine residents there is the WorldCat link.
David commented that when he looked at the test record it showed that 1 MaineCat library had this item, but when he selected it he got the message “Sorry, no copies available for requests”. James responded that it was not possible to suppress this and is a problem with other electronic titles in MaineCat.
The Directors discussed the importance of making it clear that there is currently no fee for the POD service during the test period at least (something that might change in the future, so MSCS needed to make it clear this is just a test period), the book is shipped directly to the requestor, and how long before they receive the book (because a user might not be able to wait).
The Directors agreed that the POD form should include: 1) information about how long the request will take (1-2 weeks), 2) the cost (that it is free during testing, 3) that the copy will be mailed directly to the patron 4) that this is just a test period so rules might change.
d. HathiTrust membership update
i. Colby completion – log in demo
Colby is now an official partner of the HathiTrust. Clem is currently working on a press release to announce the news.
Clem showed the log in process (with Shibboleth at work) and commented that the log in screen is similar to existing Colby log ins.
Clem reported that Colby have turned on Summon’s HathiTrust’s full-text search option. Deb added that UMaine have this functionality as well.
ii. Delays with UMaine Shibboleth installation
James reported that he had met with John Grover from UMaine IT who explained that the delays were caused by debates with them and the consulting firm Glu (who were responsible for installing Shibboleth) about where the data should reside. Gene commented that this was indeed an important issue.
UMaine IT have been testing Shibboleth this week and hoped to have the work completed tomorrow (November 22nd).
e. Budget
i. Grant extension request update
In September MSCS submitted to IMLS (via UMaine Office of Research & Sponsored programs) a request for a no-cost extension to use underspent grant funds on (in part) the organization of a national event at ALA Annual 2014. Deb received an email response from IMLS on Monday November 11th asking for detailed descriptions and budgets. Matthew commented that this is not what he was expecting based on IMLS guidance regarding no-cost extensions. Matthew intends to get in contact with IMLS to ensure they are clear that MSCS are asking for a no-cost extension not additional funds.
Matthew informed the Directors that the the only matching funds they would be contributing is continued in-kind funds for staff time working on grant related activities because a) there aren’t additional activities that need funding and b) the partners have already agreed to what they will contribute and Matthew did not want to exceed that amount.
ii. Budget vs. actual spending update
MSCS continue to underspend grant funds. Although (as predicated) Sara’s billing has increased, MSCS still have $56,242.50 remaining for the 7 months of the grant, which is unlikely to be spent at Sara’s current billing levels. Matthew commented that if MSCS do get the extension there will still be available funds to pay Sara.
Not including the money MSCS have left over for Sara and predicted expenditure, MSCS have $34,985.62 remaining between now and May 2014. If MSCS were to get the extension it would have $11,810.62 after extracting Matthew’s salary and benefits for the extra three months. In actuality MSCS would probably have more funds than this because of funds remaining from Sara’s work and from the period when Valerie left and Matthew started as Program Manager.
David asked what will happen if MSCS has remaining grant funds. Matthew commented that MSCS just wouldn’t bill IMLS for those funds. Matthew went on that there is still a lot uncertainty with what will happen until he knows whether the extension request has been successful and he wished he could have definitive answers, but he wants to avoid having underspent funds by using the grant extension (see above) to organize the national and regional events (see below). By applying for the grant extension this far in advance Matthew hopes MSCS have time to plan for different scenarios.
Gene commented that not only were MSCS exceeding the project goals, but are also under budget which was a rare feat.
iii. National & regional end of project event planning
Matthew commented that should MSCS get the necessary approvals there will be sufficient funds to pay for the costs of organizing both a national and regional event.
The Project Team and Advisory Board have discussed subject ideas for the event, potential speakers and locations. They agreed that ALA Annual 2014 was the ideal venue, but wanted to make sure that MSCS weren’t competing with CRL’s Print Archive Network event. The Project Team agreed that Matthew should investigate the possibility of MSCS partnering with CRL to co-organize an extended full-day PAN session. Matthew has produced a draft prospectus for the event which he provided the Directors a copy of.
After speaking to Marie Waltz at CRL about MSCS’s ideas they agreed to the proposal to co-organize an extended full-day Print Archive Network event at ALA Annual. CRL are paying for the costs of the regular morning session and and the grant and/or vendors will be paying the costs of the afternoon session.
Closer to home the, Project Team have discussed a local event to report on the results of the project and attempt to attract new members. Clem commented that the Maine InfoNet Collection Summit in June 2014 would be a good venue for the local event.
Matthew commented that with both events there is still some uncertainty, should MSCS not get the extension approved. But, Matthew had to plow ahead with plans for the national event because such events advance preparation. Even if the grant extension is not approved Matthew commented that MSCS would still need to report on its results and organize a membership meeting.
iv. Travel claims due 11/29/2013
The deadline for MSCS travel claims was due to be next Friday November 29th, but because of Thanksgiving Matthew will be extending it until Monday December 2nd. Matthew will send a reminder about this next week.
f. Reporting
i. Advisory Board report – comments re. Draft
Matthew had circulated a draft copy of the six month update report, which MSCS are required to provide their Advisory Board and is due by the end of November. Matthew commented that since then some sections will need to be updated to reflect decisions made by the MSCS Collection Development Committee.
Matthew commented that in writing this report it was clear that MSCS have made significant progress in the last since 6 months–going from a lot ‘to do’s’ to ‘have dones’.
Gene commented that the goal of the grant had been to develop a strategy for shared print, but that in actuality MSCS had planned it and done it.
Matthew asked the Directors to send him any comments they might have before Thanksgiving.
ii. IMLS reporting – reports due 12/31/2013
Matthew will be using the Advisory Board report as the basis for the IMLS performance report (which is due by the end of the year), but it will need condensing as it should only be 3-4 pages.
Matthew will also need to chase the UMaine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) to ensure they have submitted the financial report on time.
g. MSCC Sustainability
i. MOU – update on submission of signed copies
All MSCS partners have submitted to Matthew signed copies of the Maine Shared Collection Cooperative Memorandum Of Understanding.
ii. Post-grant activities – comments re. sustainability document
As MSCS heads towards the end of the grant it’s vital that it starts planning post-grant activities. One of the project’s goals was to develop a sustainable business/financial model to ensure MSCS extends beyond the grant and original partners. Matthew produced a sustainability planning document which was circulated prior to the meeting and included in the meeting pack. The intention of the document is to outline the activities of Maine Shared Collections Cooperative and outline some potential costs to members.
Matthew commented that the first section should be familiar to the Directors as it deals with the Governance Structure outlined in the MSCC MOU, but with more added detail on roles and responsibilities: The Board of Directors which based on the requirements of the MOU means that most of the MSCS Directors will likely be on it. The Collections and Operations Committee will meet quarterly and Matthew included some of their likely responsibilities. Matthew reported that for member libraries, their staff time working on the Committee will likely be the biggest in-kind expenditure.
In terms of staffing, the experiences of MSCS have shown the importance of having a Systems Librarian. Ideally, this would be Sara, but Matthew commented that not all libraries will be able to afford her services and she might not be able to be on call if and when her services are needed. James commented that Sara provides excellent value for money.
With Collection Analysis Services, considering their current rates most potential MSCC libraries probably aren’t going to be able to use Sustainable Collection Services (SCS), which is why Matthew was keen to hear about OCLC’s tool (see above). But Sara has also worked on a DIY tool, which MSCS haven’t looked at in too much detail that might be used especially as analysis won’t be on the same scale as the MSCS analysis. Matthew commented that it seems reasonable to expect members to cover the costs of their own collection analysis. It will probably be a while before the current MSCS libraries decide to analyze post-2003 titles (that were out of scope in MSCS). The Directors agreed that MSCS libraries are not going to be looking at titles published post-2003 (not included in MSCS) anytime soon. Gene commented that at the start of the grant process MSCS could not envisage that the technical support of SCS would be available. SCS’s support has meant that some of the planned post-grant activities (like collection analysis) have been completed in the grant period.
Clem commented that only a handful of libraries would have the resources to be able to conduct collection analysis of this scale using collection analysis tools and services. Most libraries would just look at existing commitments in MaineCat to make decisions regarding their own collections on an item by item basis. Matthew and Gene commented that there is nothing to stop libraries conducting this sort of analysis separately–without joining MSCC.
For the Project Manager role, workload is obviously dependent on how many libraries join MSCC and how active current members are in extending or revising the scope and participating in the shared print discussion. Gene asked Matthew if other libraries had expressed an interest in joining MSCC. Matthew responded that not formally, but anecdotally he has had Maine libraries asking for more information about MSCS. Deb reported the official note taker (for “Against the Grain”) at her Charleston presentation was from a Maine library (Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick?) and that she was going to discuss MSCS/MSCC with her director. Clem commented that Curtis Memorial and Camden public libraries were both possible candidates for the first wave of new MSCC member. Matthew went on that he can only ever see the Project Manger as being a part-time position. In his document Matthew described what he thinks the responsibilities of the role will be and different options for the role:
● Option 1 is that the role is just added to the responsibilities of a current MSCC member library staff member. Although there might be fewer complications with this option it is likely to result in MSCC progressing at a slower pace as staff would not have the time to spend working on the project.
● Option 2 is a dedicated position that could either be an independent contractor who bills for hours used as needed, or an employee of MSCC (Maine InfoNet handling funds) located at one of the partner libraries. There is a lot more uncertainty attached with this option as the workload is likely to be sporadic.
● Option 3 (not included in the document) takes elements from the other two and a new role is created at one of the member libraries that clearly defines that MSCC is part of his/her responsibilities and all the member libraries contribute to the wages.
Joyce agreed that Option 1 is not a good idea as current staff are unlikely to have time to spend on MSCC activities.
Matthew commented that the Project Manager role is another cost that would need to be covered by members. Depending on how active existing members are most of the Project Manager’s time may be spent on work for the new members. MSCC would need someone to be monitoring the project and keeping it active. Also, looking out for MSCC’s overall interests and supporting new members in the shared print process which will not be familiar to them.
The final section of Matthew’s report details the process for new libraries to join MSCC. One of the first steps is having a membership event to attract new members. MSCS need to have clearer ideas of what the benefits are of joining. Matthew commented that to attract new members perhaps MSCC will need to emphasize weeding opportunities, not retention. Gene commented that one of the Maine Larger Libraries had already decided to not be a member, so MSCS would need to have some clearly defined benefits.
Matthew asked the Directors for their thoughts on the proposed activities:
1. Can you identify additional MSCC activities?
2. What do you hope to get out of MSCC?
3. Do you see MSCC as an ongoing process?
4. Having heard some of the likely activities what is it worth to you?
Gene commented that libraries need to know what needs to be done first and the costs (for example 25% of a salary split 9 ways wouldn’t be that expensive) before they can decide whether they are willing to contribute funds.
Clem commented that perhaps supporting members could pay other MSCC libraries to act as “Collection Builder” who agree to ingest and validate retained materials on behalf of other MSCC libraries.
Clem commented that a certain percentage of smaller libraries will want the insurance policy of knowing that specific titles are being retained by other (MSCC) libraries and would be willing to pay a small fee for this (based on collection size). Matthew commented that it could be difficult to persuade libraries to pay for a service when they know MSCS libraries have already agreed to retain the titles. Clem went on that a library director from a small Maine library had been receptive of this idea at his and Barbara’s 2012 NELA presentation. Clem felt that MSCC would need to need make MSCC financially viable and that there is value in being part of MSCC. Linda commented that the library might not have known exactly what they were agreeing to and that it will be very difficult to persuade some libraries (particularly smaller ones) to pay for the potential services of MSCC, even if the cost was as low as $100, as some were not paying for Overdrive and MaineCat even though they are clearly valuable services. Clem responded that perhaps in marketing MSCC they would need to meet with not only library directors, but also boards.
Linda commented that although libraries can agree that shared print is the right thing do–cost is the problem. The Directors agreed that the work of MSCC is important, but the difficult part is having available funds to support it.
Matthew added that one of the barriers to membership will be that libraries can still access CTR material through ILL, so why would they pay to become a member?
A discussion ensued about how some libraries would like the prestige to been seen to be part of a high profile project like MSCC.
Gene pointed out that one possible value would be that MSCC could provide libraries with lists of their titles that are being committed to retain by MSCC libraries, so they don’t have to do the work of reviewing titles themselves. This could be one way of promoting MSCC.
Clem commented that in light of the recent Google decision and as two MSCS libraries are now HathiTrust partner that perhaps another MSCC activity could be a digitization project involving contributing content to HathiTrust.
Barbara discussed additional collection analysis work that could be tied up with MSCC involving journals that Bangor Public library, the State Library and others have been debating which would need coordinating. Deb commented that this would be like a state-wide collections position.
iii. Teaching document
In addition to ensuring MSCS extends beyond the grant partners, MSCS also plans to produce a teaching document on shared print with advice to others about our experiences in this project. Matthew has produced a few draft sections of this and intends to add to the document as the project proceeds.
h. Marketing
i. Potential for IFLA paper publication
Julia Gelfand from the IFLA Acquisition and Collection Development Committee will be sending out a message soon about which paper is selected to represent the Committee in the IFLA Journal. If the MSCS paper is not selected it will be published by Emerald.
ii. LJ monitoring progress
The Library Journal has continued to monitor the work of MSCS and have published updates on the project in their information docket.
iii. Chronicle of Higher Education mention
In October, MSCS featured in a Chronicle of Higher Education article on shared print.
iv. IFLA presentation paper mentions MSCS
MSCS were included as an example of shared print projects in another 2013 IFLA presentation paper titled “Rethinking Library Resource Sharing: New Models for Collaboration”. The paper was written by Brenda Bailey-Hainer (American Theological Library Association), Anne Beaubien (University of Michigan), Beth Posner (CUNY Graduate Center) & Evan Simpson (Tufts University).
v. MSCS included in Against the Grain article
MSCS were included in the column “Curating Collective Collections” which appeared in the September 2013 edition of Against the Grain. The column includes an update on MSCS activities and specifically the plans to disclose retention commitments in OCLC. The article was co-authored by the WEST program manager Emily Stambaugh and Column Editor Sam Demas.
2. Conferences, Events & Meetings
a. OCLC shared print webinar
Matthew attended OCLC’s webinar on shared print titled “Collective Insight: Driven by Shared Data” event, “Getting off the Island: Collaborating to Create Boundless Collections.” The event was co-organized by MSCS Advisory Board member Bob Kieft, who mentioned MSCS as an example of current projects.
Matthew felt the highlight of the event was Emily Stambaugh’s presentation that included a revised vision for shared print monographs going beyond the established activities of collection analysis to look at improving discovery and access of materials, and going beyond one-off analysis to the decision of “what to retain next?” making collection analysis more routine and at a network level. Some of the plans Emily was talking about MSCS are currently doing: for example, looking a POD & EOD delivery services and comparing collections to holdings of OCLC and HathiTrust.
b. Northeast Regional Print Management Project – MSCS involvement
Matthew attended the inaugural Northeast Regional Print Management Project Journals & Serials Working Group meeting on October 10th. The Group is still in the early planning stages looking at different business models out there and collection analysis focuses. Other Group members have been very interested to hear about MSCS’s experiences.
Clem, who as well as being on the Steering Committee is also on the Monographs Working Group, has had a conference call to plan for the monograph strategy.
c. NELA Conference, Portland, October 21, 2013
Matthew reported that he and Deb’s NELA presentation went well. The attendance could have been better (they were on at the same time as Lee Rainie from PEW research), but they did get good comments and questions.
d. Charleston Conference, November 8, 2013
Deb reported that her and Becky Albitz’s presentation went well. As with NELA, they had expected a higher attendance, but they too had some interesting questions.
e. ALA Mid-Winter – PAN meeting with Marie Waltz & Northeast Journals & Serials Working Group meeting
Matthew will be meeting with Marie Waltz (CRL) at the Print Archive Network meeting to go over agenda ideas, speak to potential presenters, and let PAN attendees know about the annual session. Matthew also has a Northeast meeting he will be attending after PAN.
f. WebWise Conference, Baltimore, February 10–13, 2014 – MSCS attendance
Matthew will be representing MSCS at IMLS’s 2014 WebWise Conference, which be held in Baltimore in February. IMLS requires that two representatives from MSCS attend the conference, but it still hasn’t been decided who else from MSCS will attend.
g. Timberline Conference – MSCS to submit paper
Sara Amato plans on submitting a presentation proposal to the Timberline Conference.
h. Date of next Directors’ Council Meeting
Matthew will be sending a Doodle Poll out with some choices of dates and times for the next Directors’ Council meeting in March, which depending on the grant extension could be the penultimate meeting.