Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Executive Committee
March 9, 2017
11:00 am – 12:00 pm
Attendees: Matthew Revitt, Joyce Rumery, Clem Guthro, Barbara McDade, Jamie Ritter, David Nutty
1. Planning for 2019 group analysis – interest from MSCC libraries & proposal from SCS
Matthew reminded the Executive Committee that the working assumption in Maine Shared Collections is that MSCC members will carry out another round of group collection analysis in 2019, which would be five years after the last group analysis during the MSCS grant. The scope of the analysis would be titles added to MSCC collections between 2003 and 2008, which were out of scope for the original group analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to identify titles that should be retained and protected within the state of Maine.
Member survey
Following the Executive Committee’s last meeting in October, Matthew surveyed the post-grant MSCC member libraries to confirm that they were interested in participating in the 2019 group collection analysis.
Out of the 27 new member libraries only 3 indicated that they weren’t interested in participating: Belfast, Eastern Maine Community College, and Kennebunk. Both Belfast and Kennebunk felt they had gotten what they needed out of the first analysis. For those libraries that were interested, their commitment would obviously be dependent on the cost of the analysis. Matthew made it clear that their retention allocations would be significantly higher than the amounts they committed following their individual analysis.
Matthew commented that the survey was also useful to capture some positive quotes regarding library’s experiences of working with MSCC.
Sustainable Collection Services’ quote
Having gathered the above information from the survey, along with the holdings estimates for MSCC libraries for titles added between 2003 and 2008 (which adds up to approximately 700,000 titles across MSCC) Matthew approached Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) for a quote for collection analysis services using their group analysis tool GreenGlass. Maine Shared Collections had contracted with SCS for collection analysis services during the grant analysis from 2013 to 2014. Since then SCS had developed their GreenGlass web based tool, which Matthew had used during the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust project, and been greatly impressed with its functionality and generally the service SCS provide.
Rick Lugg from SCS had sent Matthew a proposal on the morning of the meeting and Matthew had shared a copy with the Executive Committee. Matthew reviewed some of the key points from the proposal and summarized the analysis process.
Matthew had asked SCS to treat Minerva as a single extract. This would avoid MSCC having to incur individual set-up fees for the 15-20 Minerva libraries whose collection sizes are relatively small. MSCC would need to work with SCS and the libraries on the best way to ensure how this managed in the analysis. Treating Minerva essentially as one library would also mean that while each of the URSUS and CBB libraries and Portland Public Library would have their own instances of GreenGlass they could use to analyze their collections the Minerva libraries would just have one instance. Matthew expects that when it comes to allocating retention commitments, MSCC would likely need to have SCS assign responsibilities to Minerva as a group and then work locally, possibly with Sara Amato, on parsing out responsibility to the individual libraries based on location code.
Matthew went over the services SCS provide and the analysis process:
● The first major step is the data extract which would involve working with Maine InfoNet and staff at MSCC libraries on extracting bib, item, and circ level data for the analysis. This is an involved process and SCS estimates will take 1-2 months.
● The next steps are on SCS’s end: carrying out data validation and holdings look ups with OCLC overlap and any comparator groups MSCC may have chosen, for example, libraries in New England or the retention commitments from other shared print groups like EAST. This work takes approximately 1 month to complete.
● Over the space of approximately 2 months, SCS will compile the data into a group-wide database and MSCC would have the chance to review the data with SCS to identify any issues and meet with them in-person to look at the data in GreenGlass.
The GreenGlass UI is divided into two main areas, the first shows data for an individual library, with title counts for:
o Zero uses
o Greater than x amount of uses (depends on what MSCC define that as)
o More than 100 US holdings in OCLC
o Fewer than 5 holdings in OCLC
o Unique in Maine in OCLC
Libraries can also see their collection represented in charts by subject and overlayed with data like circulation, so one can see circulation rate for specific subjects.
The other area of the GreenGlass UI shows group level data. This is where one can see data for overlap in the MSCC group and overlap with OCLC holdings and other comparator groups. One can also view group level usage including many titles in the MSCC group have, for example, zero circs or 50 plus aggregate uses.
● Using the group data in GreenGlass, MSCC would develop retention rules and criteria to agree which categories of titles as group we would commit to retain based on factors like usage, holdings overlap in MSCC, and rarity in OCLC (similar to the grant analysis). But unlike in the grant analysis when in order to experiment with retention rules Matthew and Deb had to keep submitting requests to SCS and have them produce different versions of spreadsheets (and the delays that came with that), with GreenGlass one can immediately see the effects of retention rules on how many titles are retained across the group. SCS have allotted 3 months for the development of retention scenarios in their proposal, but hopefully it wouldn’t take as long as this as Matthew has already discussed potential retention rules with the Collections & Operations Committee.
● Once MSCC have developed its retention rules, MSCC will then work with SCS on allocating retention responsibility to individual libraries. Data will then be reloaded in GreenGlass so libraries can see the lists of items they are being asked to retain. There are also ways a library can view titles they own that have been allocated retention responsibility at another MSCC which might be useful for identifying weeding candidates.
The Executive Committee then moved on to discussing the costs of the analysis. Clem had concerns regarding the set-up fee and felt that if MSCC paid that for the 2019 there should be an agreement that it was a one-time fee and so in five years’ time for the next round of analysis (2024) this fee would be waived. The proposal assumes UMaine (like in the grant) would contract with SCS and seek reimbursement from the individual libraries which is a detail that would need to be agreed by UMaine and the group.
The Committee agreed that Matthew should contact Rick Lugg and ask whether SCS would be willing to treat each ILS as a single institution with a single extract and a single instance of GreenGlass (as they proposed doing with Minerva). Matthew will also report to Rick that the University of Southern Maine was omitted from the proposal. Matthew will report back to the Committee on Rick’s response.
Grant support
Barbara wondered whether there might be possible grant funding available to support the analysis. Matthew felt that one of the benefits of starting the planning for the analysis now is that MSCC can think about opportunities for grant funding to cover some of the costs. However, Matthew felt there were some potential barriers to securing grant funds to support this type of work. Jen Bonet at UMaine has provided Matthew with some resources on grantmakers which he can look into.
“In-house” analysis option
As an alternative option for collection analysis, Matthew has also spoken with Sara Amato (MSCC Systems Librarian) regarding her willingness to provide MSCC with much needed data extracting skills to support collection analysis. Matthew reminded the Committee that Sara would not be able to provide the full suite of services SCS provide including the complicated allocation of retention responsibilities. Matthew reviewed the details of the quote he had received from Sara in September. Matthew also went over the concerns Sara has expressed about using the OCLC API for the group project and in response to a question from Jamie attempted to explain how Sara uses the API for the one-off individual MSCC analysis: Sara extracts item and bib level data from the local catalog and uses the API to compare that data with titles that have been flagged with MSCC holdings commitments in OCLC as well as looking at overlap with OCLC holdings in the U.S. and in Maine. Sara carries out this work on a cost recovery basis based on the time it takes her to extract the data (limit of 50,000 records per day).
Matthew has been in contact with OCLC regarding using the API for the analysis and has spoken to Rick Lugg about different options should the SCS analysis prove unfeasible for MSCC.
2. Project updates
a. MSCC collection analysis update
Matthew presented a spreadsheet showing libraries he and Sara Amato have worked with on the MSCC collection analysis. Since the Committee last met, Matthew has worked with Windham Library, Thomas Memorial Library, and he and Sara are currently working with Husson University.
Matthew commented that with so many of the Minerva and URSUS libraries having already gone through the analysis, the rate of new libraries joining has slowed down. Matthew is finding that some libraries because of staffing and building issues can’t go through the analysis at this time. There are also some libraries that have not indicated a willingness to participate. These are often the same libraries that don’t send staff to Minerva member meetings or the MLA conference, so Matthew doesn’t have an opportunity to speak with them in person either.
There are approximately 20 public libraries in Minerva which Matthew hasn’t worked with and of those about a quarter (5) having expressed interest in participating, Matthew will continue to send periodical reminders.
In URSUS, the University of Maine at Machias is the only remaining UMaine library not to go through the analysis. The Legislative Library decided it couldn’t join MSCC because it couldn’t agree to the terms of MOU. David commented that the School of Law might be interest in participating once it has finished its current weeding project.
b. New appointments to MSCC Collections & Operations Committee
Since the Executive Committee last met there have been quite a few changes to the roster of the MSCC Collections & Operations Committee. Kathy Woodside from Jesup Library in Bar Harbor joined as a representative for smaller libraries. Cynthia Young from Eastern Maine Community College has stepped down from the Committee and won’t be replaced because in hindsight Matthew felt community colleges don’t need their own representative and that Kathy can represent the needs of such smaller libraries.
Krystie Wilfong is Bates’ new representative replacing Becky Albitz. Matthew has spoken with Krystie about MSCC to provide some background about the work of the project. Another new appointment to the Committee is Jenna Mayotte from Portland Public Library who replaced Brian Damien who retired.
Matthew will be scheduling a meeting with the Collections & Operations Committee in May.
c. MSCC involvement in EAST
Matthew has personally been heavily involved in the work of the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST) as their shared print consultant. EAST recently reached the landmark of having all 40+ MOUs signed. EAST’s current areas of focus are analyzing serial and journal titles and working on bringing a second cohort of libraries to go through collection analysis with SCS and make retention commitments. Bowdoin are one of the libraries that are being considered as a candidate for the second cohort.
One of the commitments EAST made in securing its grant funding from Mellon is that it would look at potential collaborations with other shared print groups, some of which it has already done with MSCC and ConnectNY, but EAST will also be holding an event sometime in early 2018 to look at areas for potential collaboration, and Matthew will be involved in this work with both his Maine and EAST hats on.
d. HathiTrust shared print update
The HathiTrust Shared Print Program is one of the programs EAST is working most closely with. As part of Phase 1 of the HathiTust project, some of the members of EAST, like Colby, that are also members of the HathiTrust are extending their EAST retention commitments for titles that have an digital equivalent in the HathiTrust to the Shared Print Program, so there will be an additional 583 commitment note in the records of these titles that will appear in CBBCat and MaineCat.
Clem and Matthew both sit on the Shared Print Advisory Committee for the HathiTrust and will be attending an in-person meeting next week in Chicago to look at finalizing recommendations for the HathiTrust MOU and look ahead to phase 2 where, amongst other system requirements, there will be the need for collection analysis and resource sharing support.
e. Delays introducing new OCLC retention commitment registration service
Projects like HathiTrust and EAST are eagerly awaiting the release of OCLC’s registration service for shared print retention commitments which will replace the current model of requiring libraries to have second shared print symbols (like the founding MSCC libraries use) to indicate a title has a retention commitment.
The release of this service has been delayed several times and now the disclosure piece looks like it won’t be released until May. Matthew and other representatives from the EAST project have met with OCLC on a numerous occasions to discuss the new service, but there are issues that still need to be addressed like the cost and a clear indication of what the disclosure piece looks like before it’s a viable option. It’s not clear when OCLC will retrofit MSCC’s existing commitments from the old model of the symbols to the new shared print holding type. Matthew commented that he would want to be first sure that this new model would actually be an improvement on the old before MSCC committed to the retrofit. MSCC is fortunate to have its commitments recorded in a central place in both MaineCat and OCLC. In EAST’s case, Sara Amato has had to develop a database for commitments, as interim solution, with the capacity to update data when necessary.
3. Farewell to Clem & appointing replacement on EC & chair
The Executive Committee bid farewell to Clem who will be leaving his position as director of Colby College libraries to become dean of California State Fullerton. Matthew commented that without Clem there would not be a Maine Shared Collections a program which has achieved so much in Maine and beyond. Clem thanked Matthew and the Executive Committee and discussed how MSCC had made a name for itself on the national arena. In response to a question from David, Clem’s advice for MSCC would be that now that we have the retention piece sorted how to we deal with discovery and delivery which are areas that need to be looked at the national level with groups like the HathiTrust. Clem felt that Matthew’s involvement in the HathiTrust and as the moderator for the Print Archive Network would help ensure Maine were part of the conversation.
Clem’s replacement
Per the MSCC MOU the Board of Directors of MSCC “shall be selected by the Maine InfoNet Board Executive Committee”. Matthew will submit a request to Joyce as chair of the Maine InfoNet Board Executive Committee to appoint a replacement for Clem to represent private non-profit colleges. The Committee also needs to decide who they want to replace Clem as chair.
4. Next meeting date
The Committee’s next meeting will be in the Fall and Matthew will send a Doodle Poll closer to the date.
THANK YOU, CLEM!