project kick-off meeting project kick-off meeting september 13, 2013

Project Kick-Off MeetingProject Kick-Off Meeting

September 13, 2013

Today’s Objectives

• Who and what is SCS?

• Rethinking Library Resources

• Data-Driven Deselection

• Overview: SCS Processes– Planning & Requirements Gathering

– Data Preparation

– GreenGlass (web-based collection analysis application)

– Group Collection Summary

Today’s Objectives• VIVA Project Goals

• VIVA Project Scope

• Proposed Project Schedule & Dependencies

• Project Roles and Communication

• Review Initial Tasks– Questions: Data

– Questions: Collections

• Clarify everything we can!

Your Objectives?

• Introductions

• What do you and your colleagues hope to achieve with this project?

• What would a successful outcome look like?

Sustainablecollections.com 4

Who and what is SCS?

• Founded in February 2011

• Principals– Chief Analytics Officer [Andy Breeding]

– Chief Technical Officer [Eric Redman]

– Chief Operations Officer [Ruth Fischer]

– Chief Executive Officer [Rick Lugg]

– OCLC [Strategic Partner]

• 100+ projects to dateSustainablecollections.com 5

SCS MissionSCS Mission

To help libraries manage and share print monographs

ActionableActionable Collection IntelligenceCollection Intelligence℠℠

Deselection: Defined Broadly

• ‘Deselection' can encompass a number of different goals:

• Transfer to offsite storage, automated storage & retrieval systems (ASRS) or compact shelving

• Shared Print Archiving

• Retention and Preservation

• Digitization

• Weeding or Withdrawal

Broader Collection Analytics

• Identifying & protecting scarcely-held titles

• Gap analysis

• Overlap analysis

• Exact edition vs. Any edition

• Print/E-Book overlap [not quite there yet]

• Using historical data to influence ongoing collection development

Good Decisions Require Data

• How many holdings/copies?

• Where are they?

• Is the title securely archived?

• Can the title be accessed quickly? Can the title be re-obtained if needed?

• Collection strengths

• What options are available for each title?

• What will the data support?

SCS Group Projects to date

• Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI)

• California State University System

• Connect New York

• Maine Shared Collections Strategy

• VIVA Videos

• Central Iowa Collaborative Collections Initiative (CI-CCI)

• Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC)

RETHINKING LIBRARY RESOURCES

Evolution of the Library Paradigm

Reader-centered: from monastic scriptorium and library; dominated by light and reading tables

Book-centered: collection growth; unrelenting need for more shelving

Learning-centered: digital content; information commons; learning spaces; information literacy

Source: Scott Bennett, Libraries and Learning:

A History of Paradigm Change (2003)14

The Problem

• Stacks are overcrowded• Use of print books is low and declining• Library space is wanted for other purposes• Print redundancy is significant• The cost of keeping books on shelves is high• Alternatives exist, but data is scattered• Traditional approaches to deselection are costly

and time-consuming

Stacks are crowded and empty

Circulation in Academic Libraries Continues to Decline

37% Decline

Space Requirements: MonographsVolumes Square Feet100,000 20,000250,000 45,000500,000 80,0001,000,000 150,0002,700,000 405,000

Source: Stephen R. Lawrence, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Keith H. Brigham, “Life Cycle Costs of Library Collections” College & Research Libraries, November 2001, p. 546.

Library space is wanted for other purposes…

“The crowding out of readers by reading materials is one of the most common and disturbing ironies in library space planning.”

--Scott Bennett

Lifecycle Costs: Monographs

• CLIR, June 2010

• Courant & Nielsen

• Estimated Annual Costs

$4.26/ volume annually in central stacks

$0.86/volume in high-density facility

Print redundancy is significant…

Potential for shared printAnd local reductions

Two functions of library print collections

• Preservation function

• “Dispensing” function

Source: Michael Buckland, Redesigning Library Services: A Manifesto (Chicago: American Library Association, 1992).

Strong preferences: print, self-sufficiency

‘Archive’ copies

• Print Archives• Failsafe for technological or natural disaster

• New digital surrogates or re-digitization

• Dark, dim, or light?

• People trust print

• Digital Archives• Secure, high-quality

• Hathi Trust, Portico

• CRL certification

‘Service’ copies

• Once content is securely archived, ‘dispensing’ function can be managed with fewer copies

• Focus on distribution, convenience, speed of delivery

• Borrow or re-purchase; print, electronic (including PDA, DDA, Short-term Loan); POD

Surplus copies

• Archiving requirements satisfied

• Sufficient service copies to meet anticipated demand

• How many holdings/copies remain?

• Are all of them needed?

• Share? Store? Withdraw?

The Case of Bertrand Russell…

Alternatives exist, but the data is scattered…

Shared Collections?

Shared Benefit?

Independent action in a collective context

Deselection Metadata

Collaborative Analysis

OVERVIEW: SCS PROCESSES

Project Segments

• Planning & requirements gathering

• Getting usable catalog extracts

• Data preparation and review=====================================================

• Group collection summary

• Scenario development

• Iterations

• Candidate listsSustainablecollections.com 36

Planning & Requirements Gathering

1. Project goals and strategies

2. Collections and analytical strategies

3. Cataloging practices and data extracts

Project Goals and Strategies

• Take time to understand member needs and perspectives:– Where does collection assessment fit in the hierarchy of goals?

– Differing levels of urgency? Space pressures?

– Differing philosophies related to shared print?

– Agreement on what constitutes a successful outcome?

• Equity issues should be discussed (very large versus very small collections)

• Is everyone in a position to make retention commitments?

Project Goals and Strategies

• How does a collection analysis project relate to the development of a Memorandum of Understanding, last-copy policy, and other shared print initiatives?

– Timing

– Membership

– Duration of commitments

Collections and Analytical Strategies

• Ensure a shared understanding of the scope of the project

• Most productive focus: circulating print monographs

• Which libraries, which branches?

• What comparisons will the group’s data support?

• Define comparator groups – VIVA pilot group

– Other VIVA libraries*

– Other groups or individual libraries (TBD)*

– Other libraries in the state (standard)*

– US libraries (standard)*

– Global libraries (standard)*

* Based on WorldCat holdings

Comparator library groups

Library UNI UI ISU Other IPALUniversity of Northern Iowa NIU University of Iowa NUI Iowa State University IWA Ashford University IO9Briar Cliff University IOBBuena Vista University IOEClarke University IOCCoe College IONCornell College IMVDes Moines University IWODivine Word College DIVDordt College IOTGraceland College IOFIowa Wesleyan IOI

Loras College IOLLuther College IOHMaharishi University of Management MIUMercy College of Health Sciences Y4QMorningside College IOMMount Mercy College UIWNorthwestern College IOOPalmer College of Chiropractic PWTSt. Ambrose University IOJUniversity of Dubuque IOVUpper Iowa University IOYWaldorf College IX5Wartburg College IOWWartburg Theological Seminary IWTWilliam Penn University IOX

• Define group-wide local interest materials – to be protected from withdrawal? For retention commitments?

• Local title protection rules – for individual member libraries?

• External comparisons– WorldCat Holdings

– Hathi Trust In-Copyright

– Hathi Trust Public Domain

– Internet Archive

– CHOICE

– CHOICE Outstanding Academic Titles

• Will subject analysis be wanted?

• What will the goals of the subject analysis be?

• Dewey to LC cross-walk needed? Other cataloging schemas ?

Library Total Charges Earliest Last Charge Date

Library 1 20 years 6/29/1993

How to deal with uneven depths of data?

Extensive item data will be collected

• item call number

• volume

• last reserve date

• copy #

• in-house uses

• barcode

• last check-in date

• last check-out date

• location code*

• item type code*

• note field*

• opac message*

• item status code*

• total checkouts

• item record number

• item create date

Getting usable catalog extracts

• SCS will specify the desired data

• Data call(s) with system librarians and catalogers

• As needed, we can arrange for assistance

• SCS will set-up an FTP area for extract delivery

• SCS will review test extracts and request changes if necessary

• SCS will confirm successful delivery of all extracts

SCS normalizes the data from each libraryBibliographic, item, circulation, and holdings data extracted, transformed, and loaded to an SCS Postgres database

•Filter out-of scope bib records (eBooks, maps, DVDs, Gov Docs)

•Eliminate duplicate bib records

•Normalize call numbers

•Eliminate trailing spaces in control numbers

•Validate OCLC numbers

•LCCN/title-string lookups for records lacking an OCLC number

•Identify and accommodate unusual implementations of MARC

•Identify bibs without items and items with multiple bib records

•Map item-level data and interpret codes

•Assign LC (and/or Dewey) Classes to records

Data counts that we will want you to validate

• Bib record counts, filtered and unfiltered

• Bib records filtered out by cause

• Circulation / internal use counts

• Title/item counts by location

Bib records filtered out by cause: example

Bib Records filtered out 21,675

Government docs 1,880

Non-language materials 2,821

Non-monographic materials 1,880

Non-print resources 13,725

Unable to obtain OCLC number 3,461

Bib Title/Author mismatch with OCLC 279

Multiple OCLC numbers per record 47

Individual Library Data Loaded to GreenGlass

• Visualize your library’s collection • Run queries against your library’s collection• See your collection on the context of

• Usage• Age• Overlap

• Understand your collection in new ways• See GreenGlass videos on the SCS website

Data Remediation Lists Available in GreenGlass

• OCLC numbers assigned by SCS• Records without OCLC numbers• Holdings not set in WorldCat• WorldCat Title/Author Risk• Multiple OCLC numbers• Other

• Hathi Public Domain titles• Hathi/ Internet Archive URLs

GreenGlass Caveats

• Aside from taking advantage of catalog remediation lists, it is important that no action be taken based on individual GreenGlass modeling, etc.

• Group level analysis will be provided offline.

GROUP COLLECTION SUMMARY

Recorded Uses

Title-Holding Counts All Libraries %

1 All Title Holdings - Filtered 1,048,251 100%

Recorded Use Counts

2 Total Recorded Uses = 0 448,173 43%

6 Total Recorded Uses 4-9 150,156 14%

7 Total Recorded Uses > 10 48,651 5%

14 Last charge after 2010 104,933 10%

WorldCat™ Counts – US

WorldCat Counts - US - Specific Edition Title Holdings %

2 Unique in the US 2,804 0%

4 2-4 Holdings in the US 7,327 1%

6 5-9 Holdings in US 10,822 1%

8 10-19 Holdings in US 19,452 2%

10 20+ Holdings In US 1,007,213 96%

12 50+ Holdings in US 953,539 91%

14 100+ Holdings in the US 875,579 84%

16 200+ Holdings in the US 728,019 69%

Overlap based on SCS Matching – for a 5 Library Group

Overlap within the 5 participating libraries Title Holdings %

2 Unique in group 526,526 50%

3 Title-holdings in 2 libraries 280,360 27%

4 Titles-holdings in 3 libraries 154,351 15%

5 Titles-holdings in 4 libraries 68,681 7%

6 Titles-holdings in all 5 libraries 18,333 2%

Overlap with a Peer Group

Overlap with other IPAL libraries – specific editions Title Holdings %

29 WorldCat holding set in 1 other IPAL Library 170,962 16%

30 WorldCat holding set in 2-4 other IPAL libraries 293,053 28%

32 WorldCat holding set in 5-9 other IPAL libraries 155,259 15%

34 WorldCat holding set in 10+ other IPAL libraries 33,678 3%

Title-Holdings by Publication Year

Title Holdings by LC Class

Number of Title

Holdings

AverageUses per

Title-Holding

Holdings and Usage Levels Compared

Hathi Trust and Internet Archive

SCS Matches Title Holdings %

9 Hathi Trust Public Domain Match 53,595 5%

10 Hathi Trust In-Copyright Match 455,250 43%

11 Internet Archive Match 158,754 15%

12 In Internet Archive not in Hathi 60,875 6%

13 In Hathi not in Internet Archive 425,414 41%

After the Group Summary has been delivered …

Ask additional questions!• What surprises?

• What do we still not know? What additional information should we ask for?

• How can we use the data to inform cooperative collection development agendas?

• How can we use the data to inform potential deselection projects?

Project Segments

• Planning & requirements gathering

• Getting usable catalog extracts

• Data preparation and review=====================================================

• Group collection summary

• Scenario development

• Iterations

• Candidate listsSustainablecollections.com 69

QUESTIONS

Today’s Objectives (2)

• VIVA Project Goals

• VIVA Project Scope

• Proposed Project Schedule & Dependencies

• Project Roles and Communication

• Initial Tasks

• Clarify everything we can

VIVA PROJECT GOALS

VIVA Project Goals• Pilot a coordinated, consortial approach to collection

assessment.

• Use the data and analysis to inform future, collaborative collection development.

• Identify scarcely-held titles in need of protection.

• Begin a discussion about the possibility of reducing unnecessary duplication and saving local space through strategic weeding.

• Provide remediated and enhanced records back to the participating schools.

VIVA Project Scope

• 10 data sets representing a range of ILS and institution types

– Public doctoral

– Public Four-year

– Public Two-year

– Private

• Compare pilot library holdings with rest of VIVA (via WorldCat holdings)

• Can this scale to include all of VIVA?Sustainablecollections.com 74

VIVA Project Scope • Circulating Print Monographs (est. 5.8 million)

• English-language only

• Main libraries only (excludes Law, Health Sciences other specialized libraries)

• LC libraries only

• Out of Scope:• Reference

• Government Documents

• Special Collections

• eBooks

High-level project schedule/dependenies

TaskTask DescriptionDescription DatesDates

Planning MeetingsPlanning Meetings Key players discuss data extracts, anomalies, peers, etc. SeptSept 20132013

Collections DecisionsCollections Decisions Comparators, local interest rules, scoping refinements Sept-Oct Sept-Oct 20132013

Data PreparationData Preparation Libraries prepare and deliver extracts to SCS. SCS validates, normalizes, matches, and performs holdings lookups.

Sept-DecSept-Dec2013? 2013?

Group Collection Group Collection SummarySummary

Categorical overview of the group data set. Used to gauge opportunities and guide scenario development.

Early Early 2014?2014?

Scenario Scenario DevelopmentDevelopment

Project leaders suggest preliminary assessment criteria. SCS iterates and revises scenarios.

Jan-April Jan-April 20142014

Candidate ListsCandidate Lists Detailed Excel spreadsheets for review, bases on finalized criteria for retention and withdrawal. Modify as necessary.

April-June April-June 20142014

Discussions Discussions FacilitationFacilitation

This will be needed at many points – but especially around scenario development, allocation, and policy development.

Through-Through-outout

AllocationAllocation Assignment of withdrawal opportunities and retention commitments – based on many factors. TBD TBD

List ProductionList Production Once allocation decisions have been made, SCS will derive title/item lists for use by individual libraries. TBDTBD

Ongoing Data Ongoing Data ManagementManagement

SCS will maintain (but will not update) the VIVA dataset for 2 years, which can be used for additional projects. … …

You Are HereYou Are Here

Project Roles & Communication

• VIVA Staff• Project Coordination

• Communication

• Libraries• Local Operational Context

• Input on Criteria, Policies

• Local Data/Collections Perspective

Project Roles & Communication• SCS

• Data Management/Consolidation/Augmentation

• Comparative Intelligence

• GreenGlass

• Framing & Facilitation

• Functional Departments• Systems/Data

• Technical Services

• Collection Development

Project Roles & Communication

• Collections & Resources for Users Committee

• Pilot Group local project managers

• Steering Committee

• Library Directors?

• Technical and domain experts

• Other VIVA libraries?

• Deadlines?

Project Roles & Decision-Making

• Collections Decisions

• Data Decisions

• Decision-Making: How will decisions be made, validated, communicated? How will discussions be conducted?

• Project Management: Representation

• Communication: Listserv?

• What happens when participants disagree?

Role of Task Force/Project Managers

• Task force (the local project managers) empowered to fine-tune the scope of the analysis , as long as the number of records will not increase.

• Task force will determine the peer groups to be used as comparisons. (Since the remainder of VIVA will take up around 70 OCLC symbols, there might not be a lot of options.)

• The group will be required to document and justify their choices, report to Steering Committee.

INITIAL TASKS

Initial Tasks: Data-related

• Prepare Data Extracts

• Data Mapping Documentation

• Item/Status/Location Codes

• Circulation Data Elements

VIVA Data Extracts: 10 Sources, 12 LibrariesInstitution ILS OCLC Symbol Estimated Records* Notes

George Mason Voyager VGM [750,000] Also in WRLC. Re-use extract for VIVA.

Old Dominion III Sierra VOD 713,995

University of Virginia SirsiDynixSymphony

1,240,421

Virginia Commonwealth Alma VRC 884,649

Virginia Tech Millennium VPI 660,000

James Madison Millennium VMC [460,443] Extract already paid via JMU-specific project

Radford Millennium VRA 233,809

Germanna CC Aleph PZJ 31,730 CC Libraries share a system, so the three pilot libraries count as a single data extract

J. Sargeant Reynolds CC Aleph PZL 66,062 See above

Mountain Empire CC Aleph PZP 37,205 See above

University of Richmond Voyager VRU 382,228

Washington & Lee Millennium VLW 405,409

Est. Total Records to be Processed**

5,800,000

Est. Total Records to be paid In Pilot***

4,600,000

Cataloging Practices and Data Extracts

• 6 local systems

• 10 approaches to cataloging

• Extent and form of item data – will be unique for each library

• Some item data will be delivered in 945 sub-fields of the MARC record. Some will be delivered in delimited files.

Extensive item data will be collected

• item call number

• volume

• last reserve date

• copy #

• in-house uses

• barcode

• last check-in date

• last check-out date

• location code*

• item type code*

• note field*

• opac message*

• item status code*

• total checkouts

• item record number

• item create date

Initial Tasks: Collections-Related

• Confirm scope of analysis

• Define Comparator groups

• Discuss/Define Local Interest Rules

• CHOICE?• ALL REVIEWS?

• OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLES

VIVA Comparator Groups?

• SCS Limit: up to 100 OCLC holdings symbols in up to 5 groups. (VIVA: 70+ symbols)

• Geographic peers?

• Resource-sharing partners?

• Institutional peers?

• Consider: are you interested in archival security of content? Access for users?

• Are external comparators useful?: VIVA may already be self-sufficient

Strong preferences: print, self-sufficiency

Local Interest Rules

• Categories of material to protect regardless of circulation levels

• Remember, we are focused on circulating print monographs

• These must be systematically identifiable; consistent data must be available

Local Interest: Examples

What do you want to know/learn?

DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS

In preparation for next steps

• Think about the questions you want to ask. Does it matter? Is it actionable?

• Think about which data points (and combinations of points) can help answer those questions

• Think about VIVA’s 5.8 million title-holdings as a single distributed collection (this is only an exercise)

• Think first about titles that have never circulated and are held by multiple libraries

• Think about storage, retention, and withdrawal• Ask: what is the worst-case scenario?

Additional considerations

• Retention commitments– Equity across group – balancing withdrawal and

retention

– Duration of retention commitment (5-10-25?)

• Conservative vs aggressive libraries

• Ongoing or one & done?

• Complexity vs understandability…

Contact Info

http://sustainablecollections.com

rick@sustainablecollections.com

andy@sustainablecollections.com

ruth@sustainablecollections.com

project kick-off meeting project kick-off meeting september 13, 2013

ongoing collection

coma collection

comrethink library

library paradigmreader

overcrowdeduse of print

project kickoff meeting

offsite storage

comtodays objectiveswho

Documents

project kick-off meeting

kick-off meeting - wp7

dissertation kick off meeting

a. bertarelli, a. dallocchioeucard/colmat kick-off meeting...

drr1 kick off meeting

kick-off meeting - wp6

kick-off meeting agenda

clusterplast kick-off meeting

kick off meeting copenhagen

astwg kick-off meeting

zip kick-off meeting

präsentation kick off-meeting

kick-off meeting seniorweb

kick off meeting

fcc kick-off meeting

dissertation kick-off meeting

deliverable: d7.1 project kick-off meeting › upload_data...

kick-off meeting

kick off meeting: centros demostradores

kick-off meeting