Standing Committee on Universitywide Library Collection Management Planning
Steering Committee
December 11, 2002, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
UC Office of the President

Meeting Notes

Meeting Objectives

1. Review recent planning initiatives and activities related to UC library collections.
2. Discuss characteristics and desired behaviors of shared collections.
3. Continue development and assessment of an inventory of candidate shared collections.
4. Discuss desired characteristics of a Universitywide collection management and coordination strategy.
5. Set out a work plan for the next 12-18 months and identify information needed and staff support required to execute the workplan.

1. Information Items

CMPG has provided groundwork for many of the meetings and subsequent planning activities that have begun to take place in the last few months, including shared collections and the role of the RLFs.

a. NRLF-3 Capital Budget request

The RLFs are pivotal to UC collection management initiatives due to the role they will most likely play in housing (if not processing and managing) shared collections.

Lawrence reported that NRLF Phase 3 was included in the University's 2003-04 capital budget proposal, and with the passage of the recent education bond act, is expected to move forward with a planned occupancy date of November 2004. NRLF staff currently believe that most planned deposits through the occupancy date can be accommodated in existing space. The two major uncertainties are the actual construction budget (which depends on conditions in the construction industry when bidding begins in summer 2003), and the fact that funding of the moveable equipment portion of the project depends on the passage of the next major educational facilities bond issue -- however, this is a minor problem, as all major equipment (including shelving) is included in the construction budget. Lawrence also noted that planning is starting for SRLF Phase 3, as SRLF will be at capacity in 2007-08, and briefly reviewed the state of the 2002-03 and expected 2003-04 operating budgets, noting that the strategies being discussed here are useful for dealing with hard times. Discussion touched on two additional topics, the problem of capacity planning for SRLF (where module sizes, negotiated with neighborhood associations, exceed the ten-year planning horizon used by the State for capital projects), and the ongoing discussion by the NRLF Board about the lending of RLF deposits to campuses (other than the depositor) for use in course reserve collections, a practice that is discouraged by the UC Interlibrary Lending Code. It will be important to review the UC ILL Code to ensure that it is supportive of the University's evolving resource sharing strategy (see Action Items, below)

There was some discussion of duplication of deposits between facilities, which is estimated at approximately 600,000 volumes. A linear extrapolation of this provides an estimate of total potential duplication of 2 million volumes (monographs only) when the RLFs are filled to their combined projected capacity of 22 million volumes (10% duplication).

b. Collection Management Initiative

Schottlaender supplemented the status report by the CMI project team by noting several interesting characteristics of the preliminary data, one of which is that overall ratio of digital to print use for the same titles at "control" campuses (where print remains on the shelf and use is closely monitored), which exceeds 10:1, is remarkably consistent among discipline areas (Humanities and Social Sciences, 10:1, Life Sciences, 9:1) with the understandable exception of the Physical Sciences (30:1). Fears that humanities and social science scholars would be reluctant to depend on digital journals are not supported by the data. It was suggested by the group that a round of campus visits by the CMI project team in the spring to present and discuss project findings might be desirable.

The project now moves into phase three, analysis of data, and the administering of a survey to students, faculty and staff systemwide. A suggestion was made for communicating to campuses, e.g. through ULs (who will share with their staff). In addition, it was recommended that Cecily go back to campuses to provide follow-up information and for other wrap-up activities.

c. & d. SIP Task Force Interim Report and SLASIAC 10/29 Meeting Outcomes

Schottlaender reported on the outcomes of the 10/29 SLASIAC meeting and the Committee's reaction to the Interim report. His impression was that SLASIAC thought the report focused too much on how systemwide library planning was going to progress and not enough on why or for whom. He noted that initial discussions in the SIP Task Force focused on libraries, digital technology and instructional applications, but that theme was set aside in the belief that a) a planning initiative in this area would carry no weight with faculty and b) it could create an "unfunded mandate" for libraries. SLASIAC discussion focused on identifying the audience(s) for library planning initiatives and framing vision and outcomes, i.e., explaining what, not how.

Gary Lawrence pointed out that although there was no strong endorsement of the document, SLASIAC didn't find any "showstoppers."

The issues that emerged (from SLASIAC) were:
· Ownership in a shared environment
· Financing in a decentralized budget system
· Development of budgetary strategies for new financial resources
· Need for consideration of library services as well as collections
· Information literacy
· Integration of library systems and course management systems
· Integration between library technology and general campus technology

SLASIAC plans to focus on strategic planning issues for the rest of the year.

Further on the matter of ownership of collections:
· The issue is not solely the concern of the libraries; there are other constituencies. The faculty view is particularly important
· SLASIAC wants to take a closer look at the concepts of ownership, counting and reporting
· It is useful to focus on the extent to which ownership issues impede planning for shared collections
· SLASIAC members observed that UC can make a difference in this area if it chooses-look at the SAT. Now the President is interested in library counting issues.

e. ULs 11/14-15 Retreat

The ULs' planning retreat in mid-November focused substantially, but not exclusively, on strategies for collection development and management. There was extensive discussion of the concept of "shared collections," resulting in the definition presented in the retreat summary, which Schottlaender considers a landmark event. Recognizing that the University Libraries support a number of successful sharing activities that do not fit within the definition of "shared collections" (e.g., conventional resource sharing, including the Request service; arrangements to ensure retention of the last copy of a title within the UC system), the ULs agreed to formalize a broader planning process for "collection management and coordination," which includes but is not limited to "shared collections." The ULs also recognize the pivotal role of the Regional Library Facilities in any strategy for collection management and coordination, and will charge the chairs of the two Regional Library Boards to develop a draft plan that addresses the new roles that the RLFs might be called on to perform in the future, as well as means of meeting the changing governance requirements of the RLFs. Kruger asked how departmental and personal collections fit into the overall collection management strategy. In general, the aim of the ULs' strategy is to enrich and diversify the Universitywide collection, and departmental/personal collections may have a role in that strategy; each UL will be responsible for implementation with regard to the collections on his/her campus.

f. Interim Activities to build shared collections (French & Shelton)

French described the current initiative sponsored and led by the ULs' Collection Development Committee, involving shared print copies of currently-subscribed digital journals from Elsevier and the Association for Computing Machinery. Shelton, who chairs the multi-campus, multi-function task force developing the shared print collection plan for these journals, noted that their initiative was clearly covered by the ULs' definition of "shared collections," and described the proposed program, where print journals would be housed at SRLF and processed by the UCLA Libraries acquisitions department.

French reported that, from its inception, the CDL has tried to negotiate for "free print" archives in digital contracts. Discussions are underway with the Collection Development Committee to expand the program to additional publishers. She noted that planning and budgeting must be completed fairly soon in order to provide guidance to CDL in its 2004 renewal negotiations and to campuses for their 2004 journal acquisitions. French distributed a table that listed potential additional publishers and identified possible additional costs. Lawrence noted that the additional costs listed in the table represent real additional outlays for archival print subscriptions and their processing, and observed that it is not yet clear how these additional costs can be financed. French concluded by noting that the key to success for this program is development of a trusted infrastructure that will enable campuses to make local collecting decisions with confidence that shared collections will be persistently available and can be readily delivered to users when needed.

2. Action Items (Schottlaender)
a. Identification and discussion of desired shared collection "behaviors" (Action)
b. Identification and assessment of candidate shared collections (Action)
c. Characteristics of a Collection Management and Coordination Strategy (Discussion)

Schottlaender noted that the behaviors of shared collection candidates cannot be divorced from the collections, so it makes sense to look at collections and their potential behaviors together in order to assess the feasibility of specific categories of material as shared collections. Discussion focused on Schottlaender's notes on the white board, including materials that are currently shared, materials that could be shared, whether behaviors or rules could be determined beforehand, and what else is needed to further evaluate or start making decisions. See White Board Notes at the end of these minutes.

There was some discussion of "digitized print materials," which are mainly campus digitization projects that are available systemwide (e.g. UCSF's tobacco archives). The "behaviors" of these as part of a shared collection are unknown (and they are different because they are digital). One question of importance for shared collection planning is the status of the print/hard copy versions after digitization.

There was also discussion of the notion of prospective monograph collections being part of a shared collection (see the paper "Practical Cooperative Collecting for Consortia: Books-not-Bought In Ohio" by Julia A. Gammon and Michael Zeoli, <http://www.crl.edu/info/awcc2002/Gammon-Zeoli Paper.pdf>).

In the world of shared collections, the RLFs may assume the dual role of holders of stored campus collections and holders of shared collections. Material might flow from storage into the shared collection, but not vice versa. This scenario illustrates the potential changed role of the RLFs, which will necessitate some planning for organization, infrastructure and financing.

The group considered the following as possible actions; items agreed to as immediate priorities are in bold.

1. Develop the collections/behaviors matrix (initial draft by staff for CMPG-SC review, then through UL channels to CDC). The preliminary matrix will function as tool for setting priorities, identifying questions, and refining articulation of both the potential collection categories and potential collection behaviors.
2. Develop fuller descriptions of possible shared collections
3. Develop a general prospectus on shared collections, consisting of the key elements of a "statement of intent" for a shared collection plus (as background) an explication of benefits and barriers (through UL channels to SOPAG).
4. Proceed with development of a "last copy/copy of record" policy and procedures (through UL channels to CDC).
5. Delineation of benefits of campus contributions to a shared collection, and incentives to contribute (see also #3 above).
6. Explore the meaning of "local options" in the shared collection context, e.g., are all campuses required to participate? What are the implications of "elective contribution" (as set forth in the University Librarians' definition of "shared collections") for collection management?
7. Planning for digitization, including needed infrastructure; explore relationship between digitization on demand (e.g., for desktop delivery) and digitization for preservation/perpetual access.
8. Define desired/required "behaviors" or characteristics of shared collection sites/facilities.
9. Review the UC Interlibrary Lending Code to ensure removal of obstacles to collection management and coordination initiatives (through UL channels to SOPAG). (NOTE: on a related matter, Kruger raised the question of a uniform policy among the campuses on the number of simultaneous items that a user could have charged out as an issue for future discussion).
10. Assess resource and staffing implications of these initiatives.
    

White Board Notes

Shared Now:

Tier 1 digital journals
Tier 1 additional print equivalent of digital journals
Tier 1 digital books
(Note: Tier 1 materials are acquired on behalf of all campuses for all campuses)
Databases (reference, full text)
Other materials

Could Become Shared:

Group 1, high-priority for consideration:

Digitized print material
Government Documents
a. low use
b. current digital
Back runs of journals with digital equivalents
Back runs of journals without digital equivalents
a. prospective
b. retrospective

Group 2, more speculative:

Monographs [in RLFs], [not circulated for X years]
Non-print collections (low use)
Thematic Collections
Dissertations

CDC's definition of ACM/Elsevier shared collection (endorsed by SOPAG):

Hybrid of open access archive and a dim archive. Articles can be faxed, photo-copied and desktop delivered (digitized-on-demand); no ILL outside UC; physical retrieval only for print artifact consultation in RLF.

"Behaviors"

1. Circulate?
2. Access?
3. Digitize-on-demand?
4. ILL?
5. Physically processed?
6. Preservation treatment?
7. Perpetually retained?

Next Steps/Issues

· Draft of a matrix of collections and behaviors
· Fuller descriptions of content possibilities
· Statement of intent
· Benefits of contributing
· Last copy policy (and Copy of record policy)
· Ownership vs. counting vs. reporting
· Secure shared collection site behaviors
· Local options / elective contribution
· Digitization & infrastructure thereunto
· Starting to think about resources, budget & staffing
· Review ILL Code