Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Executive Committee<\/p>\n
March 9, 2017<\/p>\n
11:00 am \u2013 12:00 pm<\/p>\n
Attendees: Matthew Revitt, Joyce Rumery, Clem Guthro, Barbara McDade, Jamie Ritter, David Nutty<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Planning for 2019 group analysis \u2013 interest from MSCC libraries & proposal from SCS<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Member survey<\/strong><\/p>\n Following the Executive Committee\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Out of the 27 new member libraries only 3 indicated that they weren\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n Matthew commented that the survey was also useful to capture some positive quotes regarding library\u2019s experiences of working with MSCC.<\/p>\n Sustainable Collection Services\u2019 quote<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2019 Trust project, and been greatly impressed with its functionality and generally the service SCS provide.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Matthew went over the services SCS provide and the analysis process:<\/p>\n \n\u25cf\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n \n\u25cf\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0The next steps are on SCS\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n \n\u25cf\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Over 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.<\/p>\n The GreenGlass UI is divided into two main areas, the first shows data for an individual library, with title counts for:<\/p>\n \no\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Zero uses 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \n\u25cf\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Using 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\u2019t take as long as this as Matthew has already discussed potential retention rules with the Collections & Operations Committee.<\/p>\n \n\u25cf\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Once 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s response.<\/em><\/p>\n Grant support<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIn-house\u201d analysis option<\/strong><\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n
\no\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Greater than x amount of uses (depends on what MSCC define that as)
\no\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0More than 100 US holdings in OCLC
\no\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Fewer than 5 holdings in OCLC
\no\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Unique in Maine in OCLC<\/p>\n