Summary of Project Team Meeting, April 10, 2014

Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team

April 10, 2014

Fogler Library Conference Room

10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Matthew Revitt, Sara Amato (called in), Barbara McDade

Absentees: Deb Rollins

1.    Project Updates

a.    HathiTrust/Google Books & POD

i.    Finding new home – potential move to URSUS

James thinks the new home for the E-book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand records will be URSUS. James has spoken to Joyce Rumery (UMaine Dean of Libraries) about whether the E-book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand records should be their own library in URSUS, or part of UMaine. James commented that it might be easier for login purposes if they were part of UMaine.

Matthew asked James what the likelihood of the records move starting before grant funds for Sara’s work ends at the end of July/beginning of August. James responded that it might be tough because the migration of libraries to Sierra is planned for July. Sara commented that she could have the documentation with explanations of the load process and preparatory work ready before she leaves (including a load table in the staging area). James confirmed for Barbara that the records can’t be loaded until Sierra goes live.

James agreed to keep the Project Team updated on plans for the record move. Sara will complete as much of the preparatory work for loading the records as possible before now and when she leaves MSCS.

ii.    Figures for EOD/POD hits

Matthew presented latest figures from Google Analytics for clicks to HathiTrust links, Google Books Links, and to the POD request form from the MaineCat records.

Matthew felt that overall the numbers of clicks on the links are quite low 1-7 per day. Interestingly the POD request form only has a few less clicks than the Google Books and HathiTrust links combined.

iii.    POD business model – requests update, remaining grant funds, survey responses & future of service

Requests update

MSCS have received approx. 60 requests, with some individuals requesting multiple items.

Some figures of interest are that:

●    24 titles requested were available as print copies in MaineCat
●    24 titles requested were from the HathiTrust
●    15 titles requested were from patrons of MSCS libraries

There was an issue at the beginning of March when Matthew, Sara and Deb realized that the UMaine email systems were filtering the POD requests which meant they weren’t being received. This resulted in a backlog of requests.

Survey feedback

Matthew presented a summary of the POD feedback survey results:

●    47% of responders found out about the service after searching in MaineCat when their local catalog didn’t have the title. 39% were using MaineCat and noticed the option and 13% had library staff point it out to them. Zero responders heard about the service and wanted to see how it worked so looked for a sample title.
●    The vast majority (95%) of responders requested a print copy because they prefer to read books in print. 1% were curious about what would happen if they requested the book.
●    The academic reading vs. recreational reading split was 52% vs. 48% (13/10).
●    Despite the delays, feedback from requesters shows they were pleased with the service and many were pleasantly surprised they received the book and got to keep it.

Remaining grant funds

Matthew presented a spreadsheet containing POD actual and estimated costs. MSCS have only been billed for 14 of the 61 titles. Based on Matthew’s original $27 average MSCS have $380 remaining. However, Matthew felt that in reality $27 as an average is probably too low because some of the recent books requested have been lengthy. James responded that based on the data provided by Matthew the average was more likely to be $33 (taking into account postage) which means that MSCS are close to exhausting allocated grant funds.

Future of service

Deb and Matthew met with Dick Young (head of the UMaine Bookstore) to discuss the possibility of them taking over the service which would involve introducing a cost to requesters. Matthew is still waiting to hear back from Dick regarding his investigations into taking over the service. Matthew commented that it is clear they wouldn’t be taking over the service in the short-term as there are still some logistical issues they need to address around billing and reducing the costs of printing so the prices are more competitive with those of commercial vendors. Clem commented that he was surprised the Bookstore were interested in taking over the service.

Matthew recommend that to err on the side of caution MSCS’s suspend the POD service now while MSCS can be sure allocated grant funds are not exceeded.

The Project Team agreed to suspend the POD service and add the language ‘download or purchase in Google Books’, so users know copies can be purchased from commercial vendor links in Google Books. Matthew will send a message on MELIBS announcing the news, so libraries can pass on the message to their patrons.

Rather than actually removing the link, Sara will simply change the link page to look like this example. Using JavaScript, Sara will also change the Google link to “Download or Purchase”.

Matthew agreed to report back on any information he receives from Dick Young regarding the UMaine Bookstore taking over the service.

James agreed to speak to Joyce Rumery (UMaine Dean of Libraries) about raising with her fellow URSUS directors and the MIN Board the possibility of the MaineCat EOD and POD records including links to a payment form for POD in MaineCat.

Matthew asked the Project Team their overall thoughts on the MSCS testing of Print-On-Demand.

Clem responded that it was an interesting to see that there were many who saw value in the service, but from an economic perspective, MSCS libraries could not fund it. Clem would still like the service to continue for those who find it useful, but he thinks POD prices would need to be more competitive with commercial vendors for the service to be viable. Commercial vendors can also guarantee quicker delivery times.

iv.    HathiTrust “Maine Collection” –  description added & search results discrepancy

The Maine HathiTrust collection has gone live and a collection description has now been added. There are still some remaining issues with the collection before ownership is transferred to Deb. Sara is also trying to find out how frequently the collection needs to be updated to incorporate new items added to HathiTrust.

Sara ran into some issues regarding search results. Jeremy ran an author search of “Maine” or “Me” and got 16,000+ hits, but Sara in advanced searching only got 2,072. Jeremy York informed Sara that the difference is that Sara was searching HathiTrust’s bibliographic catalog and he was running their query on the full text. Sara commented that she is still confused about why this should make a difference because she imagined information at the metadata level would be the same between the two. Sara is waiting to hear back from Jeremy about this.

v.    Membership update – UMaine’s progress

HathiTrust/University of Michigan’s Shibboleth testing for UMaine is now complete. This means the only thing now remaining with UMaine’s membership efforts is to load print holdings information and for HathiTrust to fully integrate the holdings. Jeremy York informed MSCS that this should take about 2 weeks. Sara sent holdings information back in October for a pricing quote and she has checked with Jeremy whether they will be using that information, or whether new holdings information needs to be submitted. Sara is waiting for Jeremy to respond to her message about this.

b.    Budget

i.    Budget vs. actual spending update

Matthew presented a spreadsheet with the latest spending figures for MSCS. MSCS have approx. $6,000 unallocated grant funds.

In other spending areas:

●    $24,730 is remaining for Sara’s work. Sara plans on billing 65 hours/month for April, May, June and July. MSCS can use some of the $6,000 unallocated funds to pay Sara if she goes slightly over these amounts.
●    $1,000 went out to pay the Advisory Board their Year 3 stipends.
●    UMaine have been billed for their portion of the OCLC batch loading fee. Matthew hopes that the other MSCS libraries fees will eventually be added to the University of Maine-Shared Collections, Institution Symbol MEUSP account as he requested.

Matthew has asked the MSCS Collection Development Committee to check whether their libraries have been billed locally for the service.

Clem and Barbara responded that they hadn’t received bills from OCLC for batch loading. Matthew will contact OCLC if he hasn’t heard anything from them or MSCS libraries by the end of the week.

●    The only new out of state costs were for Deb’s flight to ALA Annual. Matthew also added to the predicted spending one hotel night for James before the MSCS ALA pre-conference session (as was done for Barbara).

c.    Ongoing MSCS activities

i.    Retention Commitment Changes Policy – agree on content

The Collection Development Committee approved the Retention Commitment Changes Policy at their April 7th meeting. Taking into account comments made during and after the meeting regarding reversing commitments on legal documents, Matthew has since added a criterion for reversing titles out of scope for MSCC.

Mathew asked the Project Team their thoughts on the policy in–particular ensuring it is not seen as undermining the MSCS retention commitments.

Clem responded that it’s important to emphasize that the policy is not for methodically identifying material for mass weeding, but just to address one off issues like water damaged materials. Clem said that libraries have plenty of non-CTR items that could be prioritized for weeding.

The Project Team agreed that it was important for the following language to remain in the policy, “Libraries will remove retention commitments on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches.”

Mathew commented that in addition to the policy, there still need to be procedures for submitting lists of reversal and transfer candidates. Using ideas from Monday’s meeting, Matthew will put something together for review. Sara’s guidance on reversing/adding CTR’s in catalogs will also be included as part of the procedure.

Matthew asked James his thoughts on developing an operations side to the MSCS/MSCC website for MSCC Collections and Operations Committee to post lists of transfer and reversal candidates which will also include an alert feed or a Google Group. Clem commented that the working space didn’t necessarily need to be on the MSCS website.

James responded that for the website option it would be easy to have a password-protected area on the network for folks to post documents. They could create shared users with login to specific pages only. Google Groups is another possibility (with attachments turned on) for sharing information in the group as well.

Clem was not convinced that a feed would be required because the MSCC Collections and Operation could just include the lists of titles as part of general communications between the Committee members and the list of proposed CTR transfer/reversals would not be very frequent anyway.

Matthew agreed to speak to James and Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) about an area for posting CTR transfer/reversal lists following the meeting.

ii.    Transferring CTR items from circulating areas to special collections/archives

Most MSCS libraries will not be actively transferring CTR items from circulating areas to special collections/archives. But Matthew has asked to be notified of any work in this area, so he can include it his reports to IMLS.

iii.    Digitization of ‘rare’ titles

Most MSCS libraries will not be digitizing ‘rare’ CTR titles at this time, the exceptions being Bangor Public and the State Library. Linda Oliver (Bangor Public) and Peggy O’Kane (Maine State Library) have sent Mathew details of the digitization work at their libraries. Matthew’s tweet regarding their digitization work received some positive comments. Matthew has asked to be notified of any work in this area, so he can include it in his reports to IMLS.

Matthew commented that based on this and other decisions made at Monday’s Collection Development Committee meeting, he thinks only one more Committee meeting will be required before now and August. Any decisions that need to be made can be done so via email.

iv.    Collection building

Matthew has again asked the Collection Development Committee to identify subject areas they want their institutions to be nominated as collection builders for. Collection builders can be factored into the Retention Commitment Changes Policy (see above). However, based on initial feedback from the Committee Matthew doesn’t expect many of the MSCS libraries to nominate themselves as collection builders.

Matthew commented that it appears from Committee conversations on this topic that collection building would be reactive to CTR transfer and reversal requests and not involve libraries proactively seeking to ingest titles.

Barbara responded that in the future when hopefully MSCC is expanded across the state it would be important for libraries to know they can proactively transfer materials to a collection builder to ingest. Barbara went on that this would need to be state funded with the involvement of the ARRC libraries.

A discussion then ensued regarding space constraints being a barrier to libraries ingesting materials from other libraries.

Clem discussed how Colby, Bates and Bowdoin might look at borrowing data between the three libraries to identify materials that should be transferred to the library where the demand for the title is greater.

v.    System librarian action plan

Mathew shared with the Project Team Sara’s to-do lists with hours for the remainder of the grant. Matthew commented that some of Sara’s time will be spent on producing documentation for MSCS libraries to follow once she has gone.

d.    MSCC sustainability planning

i.    Teaching Document – review MR draft

Matthew is currently working on producing a shared print teaching document that draws upon MSCS’s experiences and provides advice for other initiatives attempting similar work. Matthew had hoped to have a draft ready to discuss at today’s meeting, but he is now working on having a draft ready for the Project Team to review by the end of the week.

ii.    Appointment of MSCC committees

At the April Maine InfoNet Board of Directors meeting the Executive Committee created the MSCC Board. The members are:

Clem Guthro, Chair
Linda Lord
Barbara McDade
David Nutty
Joyce Rumery

One of the Board’s first tasks will be to appoint the Collection & Operations Committee once the MSCS committees’ work comes to an end in August.

iii.    Survey results & plan meeting

Matthew has closed the survey he sent out to Maine library directors on cooperative collection management. Of the 326 directors who received the survey 131 took part, which Matthew thought was good going. Matthew presented a summary of the results;

●    Most responders were from public libraries.
●    35% of libraries had collection sizes of 25,000 to 50,000 volumes.
●    77% of libraries continually weed journals/serials as part of collection maintenance. The most important reason for this weeding was to provide space for new materials. 43% of libraries did not know the amount of volumes they were going reduce their collection by. But for 38% it was less than 250 volumes, with only one responder planning to reduce between 5,000-10,000 volumes.
●    81% of responders are NOT acquiring more print journals/serials than they are de-accessioningat this time.
●    For those that aren’t de-accessioning journals/serials the major reason (38%) was that they have already gone through extensive weeding process. But 27% hadn’t because of opposition from stakeholders e.g. library staff, patrons, faculty, trustees.
●    92% of requesters are de-accessioning print monographs/books as part of part of continued collection maintenance, so more than journals/serials. There appear to be a number of important factors for this with the removal of superseded/outdated titles as the most important. 36% of libraries did not know the amount of volumes they were going reduce their collection by.
●    For those that aren’t de-accessioning monographs the major reason (50%) was that they have already gone through extensive weeding process, but interestingly 40% had preservation concerns.
●    Unlike with journals and serials most responding libraries (59%) are acquiring more print monographs per year than they are de-accessioning at this time.
●    Matthew felt that responses to Question 14 were the most significant for MSCC because they showed interest in potential MSCC elements. There does appear to be interest in MSCS elements with collection analysis as libraries main interest for joining, followed by commit to retain and store specific materials within your library as part of MSCC, followed by participate in a shared centralized storage facility managed by MSCC, and perhaps unsurprisingly the least popular was to subsidize the storage of materials by other member libraries.

Matthew asked the project team for their thoughts on responses to this question.

Clem was surprised that as many as 26 libraries were very interested in collection analysis. Matthew responded that MSCC needs some firm ideas it can share with potential members on collection analysis in-particular the costs. This will require MSCS deciding on a collection analysis service which may require coming back to look at Sara’s collection analysis tool because commercial vendors may be too expensive for new MSCC members.

Clem felt that SCS and OCLC tools would not be an option for most Maine libraries as they would be too costly. But a more likely option was Sara’s tool. Clem went on that a difficulty for collection analysis will be that most libraries won’t have OCLC numbers so the data will require more manipulation. However, if they are on Innovative products at least they will have the same record structure. Matthew suggested that the MSCS Collections Development Committee could test Sara’s tool to see if it could work for MSCC.

Matthew asked Sara whether she would be interested in developing her tool for future MSCC work. Sara responded that she would be interested, but she hasn’t worked on it for a while so it would take some work.

Clem asked Sara what data was loaded into her database. Sara responded that it was all post-reclamation collection data for MSCS libraries before commitments were made. Clem responded that presumably MSCC libraries would primarily be interested in comparing their data with what MSCS had CTR and holdings overlap in Maine. Sara felt this could be added to her tool’s database.

Mathew and Sara will meet to discuss the use of her collection analysis tool for future MSCC analysis.

The Project Team were also surprised 21 libraries were very interested in committing to retain and store specific materials within their library as part of MSCC.

Matthew felt the wording of the subsidize answer option could explain this being the least popular as it could be misunderstood. Clem felt it should have included wording about subsidized storage allowing libraries to get rid of their own copies. Clem discussed how this concept should be discussed with libraries and even town’s library boards. However, Barbara felt that town boards would not be willing to pay for this and that instead state funding is needed to support this work.

●    For question 15 there were a couple of interesting responses for “Are there other services related to statewide collection analysis and storage that MSCC could consider?”
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.
●    The vast majority (86%) saw value in ARRC district-wide cooperative collection management of existing print collections.
●    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 include:
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.

Matthew asked the Project Team’s thoughts concerning how to use the survey data to plan next steps for example; organizing an event to discuss MSCS/MSCC with potential members. Matthew wondered whether a slot at a Maine InfoNet event would guarantee a larger audience than organizing a dedicated MSCC event.

The Project Team agreed that presenting at an established event would attract more attendees and that a Maine InfoNet Collection Summit would be the ideal event. Clem agreed to speak to Joyce about organizing a Maine InfoNet Collection Summit which MSCC would have a slot at. Barbara suggested having a national speaker on print speak before the MSCC slot could be a good introduction to the subject.

Mathew will publish anonymized survey results on the MSCS website.

iv.    Access to SCS database

Sara has on her to-do list the move of SCS data to a database on Maine Infonet with user interface. Sara commented that she hopes to add search functionality to it, so it’s not just done by one off scripts.

v.    Storage of grant data

The Project Team discussed the storage of grant data at their last meeting, but didn’t make any final decisions about what should happen to it when the project ends. Matthew commented that grant outputs, meeting summaries and presentations are already on the MSCS website so are publically available. But he wondered what should happen to communications and supporting documents such as SCS data lists that helped MSCS come to its decisions.

Clem felt there were two separate issues:

●    The retention and continued access to MSCS documents for project participants.

Most of this data is stored in the MSCS Dropbox drive which was paid for using grant funds and expires in October (Maine InfoNet may take it over) and the UMaine Fogler Library shared drive.

Matthew agreed to speak to James about how to ensure the MSCS data continues to be accessible to MSCS participants.

●    Public access to MSCS data.

The Project Team agreed with Clem’s assessment that most of MSCS’s data (e.g. rare MSCS titles) would not be of interest to other projects as it wouldn’t be replicable. Therefore it’s not necessary to publicly store the data. If other libraries do want any of the data MSCS could provide it them. Information on MSCS’s retention decisions are likely to be of more interest and are available on the MSCS website.

e.    Collection analysis

i.    Communications with SCS

Matthew contacted the SCS team to inform that their services are no longer required and to thank them for their work with MSCS. Rick Lugg (President of SCS) is going to use part of Matthew’s message as a testimonial on their website.

ii.    Deferred access to OCLC Collection Evaluation update

Matthew hasn’t heard anything more about MSCS’s deferred access to OCLC’s tool.

f.    Loading & display of retention information in catalogs

i.    Local Catalog – CTR filtering and loading updates

Sara has so far completed the filtering of UMaine’s Step Two titles prior to the retention statements being loaded into local catalogs.

Sara has loaded retention statements for URSUS libraries’ serials and is moving on to Portland Public Library. Sara has been speaking to Karl Fattig (Bowdoin) about loading retention statements in the new merged Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin catalog.

The only public display for serial retention commitments is in the URSUS catalog.

ii.    OCLC WorldCat – LHR batch loading process update

Sara reported the good news that OCLC have now completed the batch loading of retention statements for all MSCS library commitments from Step One. Matthew has tweeted about this exciting news. The loading started a few days before Clem’s presentation at an OCLC co-sponsored event on shared print (see below).

Sara has sent OCLC a UMaine serials retention commitment example in preparation of their load.

Sara has been informed by OCLC that because MSCS have the project parameters set up it should mean a turnaround time of only 24 hours on future loads. Sara expects all the loads to be completed by July.

iii.    MaineCat – loading updates & JJS & CG meeting with III

Once the commitments started appearing in OCLC, they also began automatically appearing in MaineCat. Matthew thanked the Project Team for their quick turnaround on agreeing the display of the commitments in MaineCat. All Step One commitments are now displaying in MaineCat.

Innovative will hopefully have a long-term fix to allow the flow of the 583 commitments from local catalogs to the union catalog MaineCat. Clem and James hopefully will see a showcase of the display (both at the bib and item level) in action at an INN-Reach Summit later this month in Portland, OR. Until then it is unclear how the display will differ to the current display.

iv.    PAPR holdings submission – communications with CRL & webinar

Sara and Matthew have been speaking to CRL about submitting holdings information for CTR serials and journal titles to their Print Archive Preservation Register. Based on discussions at the previous Project Team meeting, Matthew and Sara want to be sure submitting and updating holdings information is not going to be an onerous process for library in the future.

Sara, Sharon Fitzgerald (UMaine) and Matthew watched a webinar on PAPR last week and while they didn’t provide too much information on submission, from what little was said about it, it didn’t appear to be too onerous. However, since then Sara and Matthew received a message from Amy Wood at CRL yesterday which on the one hand was complimentary about MSCS 583 data, saying it was probably the best data sample they have received, but on the other hand Amy asked for the holdings data to be in a particular format and there could be tricky issues with monograph series being cataloged as ‘s’. Matthew asked Sara whether this could make it onerous for staff. Sara responded that it could be onerous; but it’s not a huge amount of data. Sara commented that unlike MSCS most PAPR contributors have open holdings. Sara will continue to speak to CRL about the process.

2.    Conferences, Events & Meetings

a.    EAST Project – MR & CG updates

Clem and Matthew have an in-person meeting at UMass Amherst later this month to consolidate the recommendations from the three working groups into a single planning document. There will be a meeting in July for libraries interested in joining what is now known as EAST the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust.

b.    OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event– CG 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 approx. 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 prestige. Clem discussed how MSCS’s efforts had been helped by the history of trust between the partners. There was a lot of positive feedback concerning MSCS’s achievements, particularly the project’s pragmatic approach.

c.    MSCS/CRL ALA session, Las Vegas, LV, June 27, 2014 – agenda and meeting space

Agenda

Matthew shared the good news that Ben Bunnell from Google Books has confirmed he is able to present at MSCS’s ALA Annual pre-conference session. Clem spoke with Tom Teper (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) who is the newly appointed chair of the HathiTrust shared print initiative about his availability for presenting at the MSCS shared print session at ALA Annual. Tom is going to check his schedule and get back to Clem on his availability.

Matthew has been discussing with Bob Kieft, Constance Malpas, Ben Showers, and Lizanne Payne about the format and content of their panel discussion on Multitype, Regional, National Approaches to Shared Print Collections. Matthew wanted some discussion of multitype approaches and why more projects have not included a mixture of academic and public libraries.

Bob has also been speaking to Matthew Sheehy and Andrew Stauffer about their group discussion on print retention.

Location

Matthew expects to be soon notified by ALA about where the session will be held.

Registration

Once Matthew knows the location and who is presenting from the HathiTrust he will send further emails about the session.

d.    MSCS end of project meeting & meal

Matthew thinks it would be good idea to have an end of project wrap-up meeting with the different MSCS committees (including the Advisory Board) to provide an evaluation of the project.

Matthew asked the Project Team their thoughts on what the content of this meeting should be. Barbara responded that it should ask where MSCS goes from here?

3.    Upcoming meetings

a.    May 8, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library conference room – reschedule

Matthew needs to reschedule the May Project Team meeting. Mathew will send a Doodle Poll with some proposed dates and times.

b.    May 28, Directors’ Council Meeting, Miller Library