{"id":925,"date":"2013-01-15T15:15:13","date_gmt":"2013-01-15T20:15:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.net\/mscs\/?page_id=925"},"modified":"2013-01-15T15:29:52","modified_gmt":"2013-01-15T20:29:52","slug":"925-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/updates\/925-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Year 1 Maine Shared Collections Strategy\u2019s Interim Performance Report"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Maine Shared Collections Strategy\u2019s Interim Performance Report<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Project Goals<\/h1>\n
    \n
  1. To develop a strategy for a state-wide, multi type library program for managing, storing and preserving print collections among public and private institutions to achieve greater efficiencies and extend the power of every dollar invested in collections and library facilities.<\/li>\n
  2. To expand access to existing digital book collections by developing print-on-demand (POD) and e-book-on-demand (EOD) services to support long-term management of a shared print collection, and the integration of digital resources with print collections.<\/li>\n
  3. To formalize organizational agreements, establish a budget, and develop policies essential for the maintenance of shared print and digital collections, access to them, and responsibility for sharing them.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    To realize these goals the following activities have been undertaken:<\/p>\n

    Collection and use analysis of print collection<\/h1>\n

    <\/h2>\n

    OCLC reclamation<\/h2>\n

    Although not part of the original project plan, it quickly became clear that in order to accurately compare holding and circulation data among the partners and to WorldCat that an OCLC reclamation project was needed. Seven of the eight partner libraries were required to send monograph and serial records at a minimum, for reclamation; some libraries elected to send records for additional formats not covered as part of the grant. Portland Public Library had completed a reclamation in 2009 and has continued to maintain its holdings, so it was exempt from this requirement.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    OCLC was contacted in late September 2011 with preliminary reclamation inquiries, and a reclamation order for URSUS libraries (including four participating grant libraries as well as others not part of the grant) was submitted November 17, 2011. 2,080,299 monographic records and 20,000 serial records were sent November 25 \u2013 28, 2011. The records were run by OCLC on December 24 \u2013 28, 2011. The live scan\/delete process for all URSUS schools was run between March 12 and 16, 2012.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin (CBB) completed the reclamation individually. By March 20, 2012, processes were completed for Bates and Colby. Bowdoin did not have their live scan\/delete run until March 30th, which may have been after the start of the WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) scan. Combined, the three sent roughly 1,748,483 records.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    As expected, the reclamation project exposed problems in the local catalogs; for example, records with no 001 fields, ISSN in the 001, etc. The process of identifying which records should be included was quite involved. Discussions included formats, record types, trying to identify ways to grab ‘legitimate’ records with no 001s vs. brief records, e-books, etc.\u00a0 System issues with the shared URSUS system required the export of checkin record information get the local library location. The solution required exporting serials records multiple times, once for each accounting unit.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The reclamation process involved evaluating records returned as ‘unresolved’, i.e. unmatched, by OCLC. \u00a0Bowdoin had a high percentage of records that should have matched existing OCLC records that came back as unresolved. OCLC determined that it was an error on their end due to high volume traffic at the time their records were run. OCLC re-ran the records and corrected the problem.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Reloading matching records from the reclamation into the local systems brought to light what has now been labeled a bug in the ILS software. The MARC record leader is sometimes altered in unacceptable ways during the reload. Unfortunately, we have been unable to consistently reproduce the problem, so it has been difficult for Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III), our ILS vendor, to address it. They provided a workaround involving loading and reloading records with separate load tables, which, while tedious, does work.\u00a0OCLC was not always as responsive and timely in processing records as we would have hoped. However, when they eventually addressed our issues they were very helpful.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Though a more involved process than originally thought, the reclamation work facilitated the use of a collection analysis system and cleaned up libraries\u2019 records.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    WorldCat Knowledge Base<\/h2>\n

    In February and March 2012 the Technical Services Subcommittee explored the WorldCat Knowledge Base as an alternative to loading records for owned or licensed e-resources. After much investigation and a question & answer session with OCLC project managers, it was decided that the Knowledge Base was not a viable tool for this project.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA)<\/h2>\n

    After researching existing collection analysis products, taking stock of the current environment, and contemplating the uncertainty of future development resources, the Project Team decided not to develop a local collection analysis system. In November 2011 a group subscription to OCLC\u2019s WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) was chosen as an initial solution. The Project Team also began discussions with OCLC regarding the development of a new analytics product. We have sent them detailed information regarding the data we would want to upload into the system, the data we would want to export, and examples of reports integral to a complete collection analysis for our purposes.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Because of limitations of the existing WCA product and the discovered need for partner libraries to undergo reclamations of their catalogs, access to accurate data for the group has been limited. Post-reclamation data for most partner libraries only became available in WCA in September 2012. Based on the Project Team\u2019s collections analysis criteria, the MSCS Systems Librarian has manipulated the data to facilitate the collections analysis work which underpins so much of this project. This work was completed at the beginning of November 2012. It is hoped that we will soon begin reviewing unique items (unique to the group; unique to WorldCat) and begin testing the application of retention-related metadata and determining a policy for the preservation of those items.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    As a result of repeated delays in the development of the next-generation WCA as of October 2012, the Project Team is beginning to investigate other collections analysis tools and services not considered initially.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Collections analysis criteria<\/h2>\n

    The Collection Management Subcommittee began meeting in November 2011 and has been wrestling with several collection analysis issues. Some test reports have been run from individual systems, based on various criteria (e.g., call number ranges \u201cQH\u201d and \u201c57*\u201d). This has allowed us to review sample data for evaluation purposes, and also to identify some coding inconsistencies across the group. Broader issues being discussed with regard to retention decisions include circulation statistics (e.g. what constitutes poor vs. good usage); minimum number of retention copies per title for the state; impact of library subject area strengths; existing and planned library storage facilities within the state; HathiTrust in-copyright and public domain titles\u2019 overlap with our holdings; uniqueness (in OCLC; in-state); differing collection types and thus expectations of the project for public and academic institutions.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    OCLC circulation data report<\/h2>\n

    OCLC were contracted to export data elements (both local item information and bibliographic data) for analysis. This included exporting the symbol of the holding library if in the Maine Shared Collections Strategy (MSCS) project and the number of holding libraries in OCLC overall, for each title. The following item-level data elements were requested to be pulled:<\/p>\n