Maine Shared Collections Strategy Directors’ Council
May 28, 2014
Colby College, Diamond 241
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Marjorie Hassen, David Nutty (called in), Steve Podgajny, Deb Rollins, Joyce Rumery, Matthew Revitt, Gene Wiemers
Absentees: Barbara McDade, Linda Lord
1. Project Updates
a. Collection Analysis
i. Filtering CTR lists & latest allocation figures for monographs
Matthew presented the latest figures for retention commitments made by the partner libraries (see here).
Sara Amato is working through the partner retention lists that were provided by Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) and removing titles of specific publishers that MSCS agreed in step one shouldn’t receive a retention commitment. This is why the commitment numbers are still tentative. Matthew commented that based on step one, where less than 1% of the titles had commitments removed, the numbers shouldn’t change too dramatically from the initial figures provided by SCS (which he had presented at the previous Directors’ meeting). Once this work is done, Sara will load the commitments for the remaining titles into local catalogs and OCLC. Sara hopes to have all the commitments loaded into local catalogs by the end of May.
ii. Completing work with SCS
MSCS have completed their work with SCS. Matthew contacted the SCS team to thank them for what they contributed to the project.
iii. Ongoing amendments to commitments for journals/serials
As Sara and partner library technical services staff began adding retention commitments in the catalogs, they identified some titles that they felt didn’t warrant a commitment because looking at the records they either have an existing short-term retention policy (e.g. newspapers), the holdings are missing, or only one volume is held. After first seeking approval from the libraries’ Collection Development Committee member most of these titles didn’t receive a retention commitment.
iv. Digitization & transfer to non-circulating areas
The MSCS grant proposal said that as part of the project the partner libraries would develop a strategy for preserving print materials as well as retaining them. Therefore, Matthew asked the Collection Development Committee to consider two preservation methods: digitization and transferring CTR items to non-circulating areas.
The Committee agreed that these were activities MSCS should investigate further, identifying candidates in specific areas of the committed to retain group. For digitization, the Committee looked at titles that are in the public domain and not already digitized in the HathiTrust. For transfer, the Committee considered ‘rare’ titles which were those titles where there were fewer than 10 OCLC holdings in the US. The Committee members were provided with lists of titles that fell into these categories.
So far the Maine State Library and Bangor Public Library have identified titles from their lists that they will digitize. The Maine State Library and UMaine have identified a small amount of items to transfer. Matthew commented that he was pleased that he will be able to report on this work to IMLS.
v. Weeding decisions based on MSCS commitments
Another area Matthew wanted more information on for grant reporting purposes is examples where MSCS libraries are using the retention commitments to weed their collections of items they haven’t been assigned a commitment to retain. Bowdoin and the Maine State Library have provided Matthew with some data on weeding they have carried out and he has asked the other partners to keep him updated on any weeding done using the MSCS retention commitments.
vi. OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – webinar & access update
Matthew attended a webinar on OCLC’s Collection Evaluation tool in April. Matthew reported that from the webinar it does appear that OCLC have made some progress on the development of the tool, but only for single library analysis. The webinar was marketed for libraries who want to weed or look for gaps in their collections not group shared print projects. There were no firm details on when group functionality would be available–just that it would be in a future release.
Matthew hasn’t received any further information about MSCS’s deferred access to the tool, but as the group functionality isn’t available it’s only to be expected.
b. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. Local Catalogs – loading updates & public display
Sara hopes to have all the commitments loaded by the end of the month. Sara has been working with all libraries on completing this work, but in particular Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin now that their shared catalog is live.
ii. OCLC WorldCat –batch loading progress
In March, four months since MSCS’s request was submitted, OCLC finally began batchloading MSCS retention commitments into the Local Holding Records of committed to retain titles. It was an important landmark for the project as MSCS became the first libraries to have commitments in OCLC for monograph titles.
Matthew presented an example of the public display of the commitments in OCLC WorldCat (see here). Matthew commented that having two symbols for each holding in OCLC: both the main symbol, which will remain requestable, and the shared print symbol, which will be a non-supplier is not ideal because it does make it appear like there are two separate holdings, but until a more practical model is developed by OCLC, MSCS will continue with this practice. Deb commented that clicking on the symbol link will take a user to the same local URSUS record for the title. Also, the library information for the shared print symbol includes a link to the MSCS website.
After this initial batchload of commitments OCLC have taken 1-2 weeks to process the requests which is a definitive improvement. Matthew commented that hopefully this will mean that the work can be completed in the grant period.
MSCS were charged a one-off fee of $355 per library for the batchloading process. Grant funds were used to pay this cost and the payment has been submitted by the University of Maine.
iii. MaineCat – current display & long-term III fix
Matthew presented an example of the display of retention information in a MaineCat record (see here). In the short-term to get retention information to display in MaineCat, JavaScript is being used to perform a check in OCLC when an item is part of MSCS’s shared print agreement. This meant as soon as the commitments started appearing in OCLC they also began appearing in MaineCat. After some debate on the layout and location of display, the MSCS committees agreed on the example Matthew presented. However, this is still just a short-term fix because in the long-term, MSCS wants to have the retention information flow from the local catalogs MARC 583 into the central MaineCat record. James reported that Innovative have announced that the functionality for this is currently in beta testing and scheduled to be available in their summer release of INN-Reach.
iv. PAPR – holding examples submitted
Sara and Matthew have been discussing with the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) the process for submitting holding information for committed to retain serials and journals into their Print Archive Preservation Registry (PAPR). Sara and Matthew wanted to ensure the process for submitted holdings data was not going to be a burden to staff when MSCS are already asking them to add retention information to various catalogs. Sara and Matthew found that PAPR required the same information and format as OCLC do, so the holdings information can be submitted at the same time. Sara has gone ahead and submitted holdings information for Bangor Public Library and USM as examples of MSCS commitments. Amy Wood (CRL) hopes to have some initial holdings and data reports based to present at the Print Archive Network (PAN) meeting that is proceeding the MSCS session at ALA Annual.
Having holdings information in PAPR means that MSCS libraries can submit to CRL a list of titles and holdings from their own collection and receive a spreadsheet free of charge showing which of their titles and holdings are committed (as reported in PAPR) to an existing print archive or shared print program. Matthew commented that the spreadsheets might be useful in future collection analysis and for libraries in-house weeding projects.
c. Ebook-On-Demand (EOD) & Print-On-Demand (POD) services
i. Planned move and re-load of EOD records
The records containing HathiTrust, Google Books and Print-On-Demand links will need to find a new home because Solar (the system they are currently stored in) is being decommissioned.
James reported that the ideal place for records is within URSUS. To avoid overloading the existing catalog, it can be arranged that records will appear in a broad URSUS search, but if libraries limit to their own location, then they no longer see it.
James and Joyce reported that the loading of the EOD and POD records to URSUS was mentioned at the last URSUS Directors’ meeting and that there wasn’t any opposition to it happening. However, Joyce commented that she will discuss the record load again with the directors at their next meeting to ensure they fully understand what work is being done.
Matthew presented an example MaineCat record (see here) with links to the HathiTrust, Google Books and the Print-On-Demand request form.
James confirmed for Clem that the way the records appear in MaineCat will remain the same despite them moving from Solar to URSUS. A discussion ensued regarding the information displayed in the record. The directors felt that to avoid confusion the Library column should say “Online Resource” rather than “URSUS” (or “SOLAR” as it is currently). James confirmed that the Library, Shelving Location and Call Number and Serial Holdings are not customizable which means that although they aren’t relevant for online resources they can’t be blocked from these records. Clem commented that with more resources available digitally this something that Innovative should address in the customization of their products.
Sara is producing guidance for Maine InfoNet staff to follow for future record loads.
ii. Tracking hits to links
Matthew has been using Google Analytics to track hits to the HathiTrust, Google Books and POD links. Matthew commented that in his opinion hits overall have been quite low. From January to April 2014 there were only 35 clicks per month Google Books and HathiTrust on average. This was more than clicks to the Print-On-Demand (POD) request link which there were an average of 15 clicks per month over the same period.
Gene commented that he wasn’t surprised by these numbers because users can access the material from other sources including directly on the HathiTrust website.
iii. POD test period results – requests & survey results
The test period for POD ended in April early because MSCS were close to exhausting grant funds allocated for the testing. MSCS still haven’t been billed for approximately 30 books, so Matthew has had to estimate what was spent.
Matthew reported on what he felt were some interesting findings from the test period and survey sent out to requesters:
● 61 titles were requested in total.
● 37 individuals made requests. One individual requested a total of ten books during the test period.
● 24 titles requested were already available as print copies in MaineCat.
● There were a diverse range of titles requested, but the LC Classification F “Local History of the United States and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America” received the most (19).
● The vast majority of titles were available from commercial vendors directly from links in the Google Books and HathiTrust viewer. In many cases the cost of the commercial vendor copy was less than what the University of Maine Printing and Mailing Services charged.
● Source of POD PDF files was split between Google Books (37 titles) and HathiTrust (24 titles)
● 45% of responders found out about the service after searching in MaineCat when their local catalog didn’t have the title. 45% were using MaineCat and noticed the option and 10% had library staff point it out to them. Zero responders had heard about the service and thus sought out a sample title in order to make a request.
● The vast majority (96%) of responders requested a print copy because they prefer to read books in print. 4% were curious about what would happen if they requested the book.
● The academic reading vs. recreational reading split was 56% vs. 44%.
● Comments from requesters showed they were pleased with the service and many were pleasantly surprised that they received the book, at its quality, and also that they got to keep it.
iv. Potential partnership with UMaine Printing Services & Bookstore
Matthew commented that for the POD service to be sustainable, fees need to be introduced because it’s unlikely (based on previous discussions at MSCS meetings) that Maine libraries will be willing to financially support it.
Joyce has spoken to Dick Young (head of UMaine Auxiliary Services) to discuss the possibility of the UMaine Bookstore taking over the service on a cost recovery basis. Dick is interested in taking over the financial side of the service and so Matthew and Deb have had follow-up meetings (including with Printing Services) to discuss the service further.
Matthew reported that the current plan is for the UMaine Printing Services to continue to print the books, but instead of the order form being on a MaineCat page (as it was during the test period) the “Request Print Copy” link will take the requester to a special order form on the Printing Service’s webpages. Maine InfoNet staff will need to work with Printing Services on getting the links setup. Matthew commented that following this initial technical work and also guidance on downloading titles from the HathiTrust and Google Books, library staff involvement in the process will be minimal.
James and Joyce reported that they had also mentioned at the URSUS Directors’ meeting that the EOD/POD records would contain links to a payment form for POD. There was no opposition from the directors to these links being added. However, Joyce will discuss this again with the directors at their next meeting to ensure they fully understand what work is being done. Deb commented that by having the “Download or Purchase from Google Books” link there was already a link to a financial transaction in the catalog.
Matthew showed how a requester could find a copy available from a commercial vendor directly in Google Books using the “Get this book in print” tab. Often those copies are significantly cheaper than what it would cost to print and mail the book using the UMaine Printing Services. Matthew felt that the Bookstore and Printing Services will need to make their prices more competitive for the service to be sustainable. Matthew commented that sometimes even when there isn’t a link to copies on a commercial vendor website there are sometimes still copies available if you search directly on the vendor’s website, but this is often because the copy is of a different edition.
Matthew commented that there a lot of testing of the service will be required before the service goes live. Also, although the UMaine Printing Services won’t be responsible for handing the financial transaction with the requesters they will need to have implemented their new billing system to make the process more efficient.
The Directors felt that the text “Request Print Copy” in the record made it seem like the user would be requesting a print library copy from a MaineCat library not purchasing a POD copy. The directors also discussed having a separate ILL link to allow users to find a copy available in MaineCat. However, there was concern about which library the request would be routed to. Matthew commented that in the original POD order form there had been links for searching both in MaineCat and OCLC WorldCat.
The Directors agreed that instead of “Request Print Copy” the text for the link to the request form for POD copies should read “Purchase Print Copy from UMaine Bookstore”.
d. HathiTrust
i. UMaine completes partnership process
In early May, UMaine become a partner of the HathiTrust. There will be an official press release to announce the news shortly. Matthew has also publicized the news on the MSCS website and Twitter feed.
The cost of UMaine joining HathiTrust is going to be counted towards MSCS’s matching funds. Deb has received an invoice for the costs and because of the delay in joining the payment for HathiTrust is now much lower, since they bill per calendar year and have pro-rated for 2014. Matthew commented that MSCS should still be meeting its matching fund requirements by the in-kind match of salary contributions.
ii. HathiTrust custom collection live
Maine now has its own collection in the HathiTrust for Maine related items already in the online resource (see here). Deb and Sara worked with Jeremy York at the HathiTrust on getting this created. Maine is the first state to have such a collection and the Library Journal has reported on this news in their “Information Docket” alongside the news of UMaine becoming a partner of the HathiTrust.
Clem asked whether this collection can be added to. Deb and Matthew responded that there is no way to easily update the collection and that Jeremy York is going to have to periodically update the collection using the criteria Deb developed. Deb is still waiting to hear from Jeremy regarding how often the collection will be updated. At the moment as a regular user there is no easy way to add items to the collection, you can only add on an item-by-item basis and only when in the item view.
iii. Shared Print Distributed Print Archiving Working Group – CG appointment
Clem reported that the HathiTrust have formed a Shared Print Distributed Print Archiving Working Group to ensure they have a accompanying print copy of everything they have a digital copy of. Thomas. H. Teper (Assistant Dean of Libraries, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) will chair a nine person working group to plan this work. Clem has been appointed to this group.
James asked if HathiTrust partners who added material performed destructive scanning. Clem responded that they didn’t, but there was no retention commitment to not weed items once they have been scanned.
e. Budget
i. Spending update
Matthew presented a spreadsheet with the latest spending figures for MSCS. There is still approximately $6,000 unallocated grant funds, but Matthew thinks that this will get spent in the remaining months.
In other spending areas:
● Approximately $23,000 is remaining to pay for Matthew’s compensation until the end of August.
● $18,430 remaining for Sara’s work. Sara plans on billing 65 hours /mo. for May, June and July. MSCS can hopefully use some of the $6,000 unallocated funds to pay Sara if she goes slightly over these amounts.
● $1,371.42 remaining to pay for in-state meeting travel claims for MSCS staff
● UMaine have submitted payment to OCLC for the OCLC batchloading fee, so $2,838 came out for that.
● $1,000 went out to pay the Advisory Board their year 3 stipends.
● Printing Services still to bill MSCS for about 30 titles they printed as part of the POD period.
● Travel costs for ALA and fees for room and AV equipment hire for MSCS session. Also keynote speaker fee.
ii. Travel claims due 05/30/2014
The travel claims for MSCS are due on May 30th, but because of today’s meeting Matthew will extend the deadline until Monday June 2nd. Matthew will send a reminder for submitting claims.
f. Reporting
i. Final Advisory Board report submitted
Matthew submitted MSCS’s final progress report to the Advisory Board to update them on the project’s activities over the past six months.
ii. Due dates for interim and final IMLS reports
Because of the grant extension MSCS’s next interim report for IMLS is not due until December 31st, 2014. The final reports are due in August 2015.
iii. Project wrap-up meeting
Although the grant officially ends in May of next year MSCS are going to be wrapping up grant activities at the end of August. Matthew felt it would be useful as a way of evaluating the work of the MSCS project (for final grant reports) and for planning for the future of MSCC to have a wrap-up meeting in August with the different MSCS committees. Matthew will be sending out more details on this soon.
g. MSCC sustainability planning
i. Policies & procedures
Matthew commented that it was appropriate for Sara to carry out a lot of the work on adding commitments to catalogs and record loads for the HathiTrust, etc., but for the post-grant period staff at the partner libraries will need policies and procedures they can follow to do any one-off work themselves. As grant activities wind down Matthew has asked Sara to prioritize getting these documents completed. Deb and Matthew have also been working on policies and procedures for staff to follow when making changes to commitments.
The Collection Development Committee and Technical Services Committees will be having a joint meeting next month where these policies and procedures will be discussed.
Steve commented that personally he would like to contract with Sara for any work that is required around adding/changing commitments in catalogs because she has proven to be the expert at getting this work done. It will also mean that local staff won’t need to be diverted away from their already busy workloads. Steve would like some predictive costs for work required. Matthew will speak to Sara about her willingness to be contracted to do this work, however he emphasized that for the current MSCS libraries there would probably only need to be occasional systems work and on a lot smaller scale than was done for MSCS.
ii. Shared print teaching guide
A substantial part of Matthew’s time recently has been spent working on a shared print teaching guide which details MSCS’s experiences (both good and bad) during the project and offers advice to others tacking similar work. Judging by the regular requests for information Matthew receives from other shared print projects about MSCS’s work he thinks there is an audience out there for the document. Matthew aims to have a final version ready to promote at the MSCS ALA session on Friday June 27th.
Matthew has shared a copy of the document with the Project Team and other MSCS committees and has set a deadline of June 3rd for them to get back to him by with feedback and answers to some specific questions he asked. So far Matthew has only received a limited amount of feedback, but he will be discussing the guide at the June committee meetings, so hopes to get hear their thoughts then.
Once Matthew has a final draft he will send the directors a copy.
iii. MSCC survey results, membership event & MSCC activities
Survey results
Matthew sent out a survey in March to Maine library directors on the subject of cooperative collection management with the aim of getting some data on libraries interest in joining MSCC (see here for full results). Of the 326 directors who received the survey 131 took part, which I thought was good going.
Rather than go over all of the responses, questions 14-17 were the most significant for MSCC because they showed interest in potential MSCC elements:
● There does appear to be interest in MSCS elements, the following is the preference order:
o Collection analysis services
o Commit to retain and store specific materials within their library as part of MSCC
o Participate in a shared centralized storage facility managed by MSCC
o Subsidize the storage of materials by other member libraries.
Steve asked Matthew whether he had a profile of respondents who had showed interest in MSCC elements and if so whether they were next tier of Maine libraries after the MSCS partners. Matthew responded that he did have data on which specific libraries had shown interest which he could share with the directors.
● Question 15 “Are there other services related to statewide collection analysis and storage that MSCC could consider?” was an open-response question and included some interesting responses:
o Holding last copy.
o Shared cataloguing system.
o Donating copies to MSCC that libraries can’t retain anymore.
o Preserving one copy of Maine authors’ works that are of historical value, but low circulating.
o Taking into account public domain e-books.
o POD, book repair and rare book appraisal.
o Other subject areas such as government docs.
● 90% of respondents thought rare books/special collections should be retained and preserved by MSCC. And more respondents thought monographs (68%) should be included than reference sets or series or periodicals.
● Some of the interesting comments at the end of the survey included:
o Lack of finances preventing libraries from taking part.
o Too small a library was another common reason for thinking they couldn’t take part.
o The fact that as “a small library they cannot purchase and store all the important published materials that the public requests. We need a Maine Shared Collections Cooperative.”
o Libraries with specific collection needs.
o Fear of giving up local control over collection management decisions.
o Importance of “last copy” centers.
Membership event
The Project Team have discussed arranging a session at the next Maine InfoNet Collection Summit to present the results of MSCS and to discuss what services MSCC can provide members and the process for joining. Clem and Joyce commented that they plan on meeting to discuss the Maine InfoNet Collection Summit further.
MSCC services
Matthew has spoken with Sara Amato about using a database she developed to run reports on collection data for use in MSCC. Since she first worked on this database (before MSCS contracted with SCS) the partners have learned a lot about what kind of data, reports, etc. is required when conducting collection analysis. One of the lessons learned is that libraries are not going to want to do the data wrangling themselves; they only want to see the outputs that show summaries of the data. So in Matthew’s opinion rather than having libraries use the database themselves, Sara could work with them on extracting the data from their catalogs and then load it into her database, combine holdings look ups from OCLC, etc. and compare it with MSCC commitments to give new members both retention and withdrawal candidates. Sara is going to test the database with data from MSCS libraries for titles post-2003 which were out of scope for MSCS, so she can provide Matthew with some time and costs estimates that can be built into the costs of MSCC.
Clem commented that the data output required for collection analysis would be a lot easier if new members used Innovative products and were OCLC members. Matthew responded that he can compare the survey results with lists of Innovative libraries in Maine.
James felt that MSCC should consider the possibility of affiliate (or supporting) MSCC members that might not require full collection analysis, but could benefit from matching existing MSCC commitment to their collection to identify where there is overlap. So rather than running data comparisons for their whole collections it might make more sense to just include titles with existing retention commitments, so libraries can use this to identify withdrawal candidates. Then perhaps a limited second option where new members manually self-identify and declare titles they agree to CTR for MSCC. The directors agreed that a lot of the even small libraries in Maine will have titles that should be retained and preserved as part of a shared collection.
Gene recommended that MSCC representatives partner up with one of the libraries interested in MSCC (based on the survey responses) and deliver a joint presentation at the Collection Summit event describing how MSCC (particularly collection analysis) could help their specific needs as a smaller library.
Matthew asked the directors for their thoughts on potential activities for the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC).
Steve responded that he would like to see an active conversation around broad shared collection development for example, identifying collection builders. So if libraries have material on a particular subject they no longer want to retain locally they know there is a collection builder library for that subject which may ingest the items into their collection. Clem commented that the Maine State Library had agreed to be a collection builder for Maine related items. Steve commented that Portland Public had agreed to be assigned fiction titles.
Steve also felt that the existing work around a centralized state physical collection of periodicals (with Digitize-On-Demand services for resource sharing) could be something that MSCC gets involved with. Matthew will speak to Brian Damien (Portland Public) about this work including how a spreadsheet of titles that may form part of this collection (some have been digitized) could be incorporated into the data comparisons for MSCC collection analysis.
Clem commented that Barbara had previously discussed at MSCS meetings how a shared storage facility could play into the future of MSCC for libraries that have limited local space.
Deb commented that MSCC will need to decide whether the cost of joining is just a one-time fee for collection analysis, or whether there is an ongoing membership fee. Steve responded that based on previous experiences he can’t see smaller libraries paying a membership fee. Matthew commented that he thinks the cost will just be a one-off fee (based on the scope of analysis) for collection analysis (possibly including work on extracting data and disclosure) and that once this is complete the only membership costs will be indirect staff time spent on committee business.
Matthew felt that there wouldn’t be any additional direct costs for current MSCS libraries who won’t be conducting any further collection analysis in the short to medium term. Until other libraries join MSCC there will be the indirect costs of staff time spent on dealing with issues from the grant, but once other libraries join MSCC they might support the collection analysis process. Although Sara can be responsible for the technical side of wrangling the collection data; new members will also need support in the analysis of the data that is required to make retention decisions.
Gene discussed how the current MSCS libraries have an ongoing commitment to the process to ensure that the trust placed in retention agreements are not undermined. A discussion then ensued regarding whether there should also be ongoing financial support from the current MSCS libraries.
Matthew and the Project Team will investigate further the various ideas discussed at the meeting.
iv. Forming committees, staffing & beginning work
As part of the transition to post-grant the Board of Directors of MSCC was appointed in April by the Maine InfoNet Executive Board.
The members are:
Clem Guthro, Chair
Linda Lord
Barbara McDade
David Nutty
Joyce Rumery
One of the Board’s first decisions will be to appoint the Collections and Operations Committee which will begin their work in September (once MSCS finishes). Clem commented that at least initially this Committee will be compromised of representatives from the MSCS Collection Development Committee.
2. Conferences, Articles, Events & Meetings
a. ALA Annual 2014 “Looking to the Future of Shared Print” session – registration & presenters update & meal
Registration
At the time of the meeting there were approximately 90 registrants for the session. Matthew commented that it’s good that the session is proving to be such a popular draw and that many folks attending have not previously attended a Print Archive Network meeting.
Presenters
The roster of presenters has been finalized with Tom Teper Assistant Dean of Libraries from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and chair of the HathiTrust Distributed Print Archiving Working Group agreeing to present. Tom along with Kurt Groetsch from Google Books will be discussing digital collections. Kurt previously worked in collection development at the University of Chicago and replaced Ben Bunnell as the speaker from Google.
b. OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event – CG presentation & MSCS feedback
Clem reported on the OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management Symposium he attended and presented at in Dublin, OH from March 27-28. There were approximately 120 attendees at the event.
OCLC had conducted research into the CIC collection which showed not a huge amount of overlap between the libraries’ collections and lots of uniqueness. Clem went on to discuss a question he had asked at the Symposium concerning the political side of shared print and how important a library’s collection size is to a library’s reputation and the ability to attract faculty. Clem discussed how MSCS’s efforts had been helped by the history of trust between the partners and the shared ILS. Also, the scale of MSCS compared to CIC made it more likely that MSCS could sit down together around one table (in-person) and make retention agreements. There was a lot of positive feedback concerning MSCS’s achievements, particularly the project’s pragmatic approach.
c. III whitepaper feat. Clem
In April, Innovative published a whitepaper (see here) on last copy services (AKA shared print) that featured extracts from an interview Clem gave to Owen Stephens from Sero Consulting about MSCS and shared print in general.
d. Against The Grain article on MSCS
Bob Kieft is the new editor of the Against The Grain column “Curating Collective Collections” and he wants to dedicate a future edition of the column to the work of MSCS. Matthew is going to produce a draft copy of an article and share it with the Project Team for comment. The deadline for the article is early July 2014.
e. ALCTS Monographs Series shared print chapter to feat. MSCS
Matthew has been asked by the ALCTS Monographs Series Editorial Board to contribute to a chapter for a monograph on shared collections which will be published sometime in 2015.
f. EAST project – MSCS involvement & membership meeting
Clem and Matthew attended an Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST, formerly known as NERD and the Northeast Regional Library Print Management Project) in April to put the final touches on a report with recommendations for the business and financial model and governance structure of EAST. Matthew commented that the other participants were very interested in MSCS’s experiences particularly concerning collection analysis.
There is going to be a meeting on July 17th for northeast libraries interested in joining EAST to discuss the plans the working groups have developed. Clem recommended that the MSCS libraries send someone to attend this meeting. Matthew commented that it seems that in the first phases of the project membership will be restricted to academic institutions, but that public libraries might be welcome in the future. Gene asked Clem what he thought the benefits of joining EAST are. Clem responded that other than the possibility of opening up new resource sharing channels it’s difficult to tell what the benefits will be at this stage which is one reason why he felt it was important to attend the July meeting to hear more about the project. A discussion then ensued regarding MSCS involvement in collection analysis when libraries have already gone through the process with SCS.
Clem commented that to cover the costs of the project the EAST Steering Committee are looking for grant funding support.
Steve asked what MSCS were going to include in its final reports regarding scalability. The directors agreed that MSCS was able to succeed because there was political support for the project and the support of grant funds. Gene commented that he can’t see a national approach to shared print as there are too many players and politics involved for there to be agreement.
Matthew commented that this was the last MSCS Directors’ Council meeting, so he thanked the directors for their work on the project. Matthew will send around a Doodle Poll with dates and times for the wrap-up meeting which will likely be some time in August.