oclc online computer library center nast report attributes ala midwinter 2007 meeting january 21,...

OCLC Online Computer Library Center

NASTReport Attributes

ALA Midwinter 2007 Meeting

January 21, 2007

David Millikin

Product Manager, Library Logistics

OCLC

[email protected]


Report Attributes – Agenda

Objectives

Methodology

Discussion Group Findings

Storage Facilities Overview

Report Attributes Desired

Attributes Needing Further Discussion

“Nice to Have’s”

Alternative Report Uses

Next Steps


Objectives

Test usefulness of a report with potential users

Shared database of collections in storage

Offer tools and reports for comparing stored collections across institutions / groups

Libraries could use this information to inform their collection development decision

Determine attributes desired on report


Methodology

Two Discussion Groups

Current storage issues

Usefulness of report concept

Specific report attributes desired

Review Results

NAST report team

OCLC Collection Analysis, Market & Data Analysis

This advisory group


Methodology – Discussion Groups

First Group: Members of libraries who are very familiar with discussions

University of California

California Digital Library

Library of Congress

The Ohio State University

Vanderbilt University

Washington Research Library Consortium


Methodology – Discussion Groups

Second Group: Members of libraries who have not participated in discussions

Boston College

University of Guelph

Purdue University

University of Texas at Austin

University of Washington


Methodology – Review Results

NAST report team

Melissa Trevvett, Paul Gherman, Constance Malpas, Glenda Lammers

Ensure progress & preview findings

OCLC Collection Analysis, Market & Data Analysis

Glenda Lammers, Rob Ross, Janet Hawk, Joanne Cantrell

Review discussion group findings

Confirm attributes identified are detailed enough to take action


Methodology – Review Results

This advisory group

Review report attributes

Discuss questionable attributes

Confirm next steps


Discussion Group Findings – Facilities

Common Findings

All institutions interviewed have stored collections

All institutions circulate stored collections

Exceptions: Photos, Special, Rare Collections

Storage facilities are nearing capacity

Most have plans for increase of storage capacity

Storage initially filled without consistency in selecting items for storage


Discussion Group Findings – Facilities

Disparate Findings

Facility Layout / Design

Environmental Conditions of Facilities

Weeding Practices of Facilities

Methods of Addressing Space Limitations


Discussion Group Findings – Report

Institutions employ various techniques to make weeding / collection decisions

Benchmarking

Circulation Statistics

Item Age, Condition

Availability as e-Content (e-Journals; e-Books less frequent)

Preservation Goals

Report would be useful that draws from other institutions’ collection data for weeding and/or collection decision-making



Report Attributes Desired

Physical Location / Ownership of Stored Items

Age of Stored Items

Item is in a Special Collection

Condition of Storage Facilities

Physical Condition of Stored Items

Number of Stored Items

Ability to Export Report to Spreadsheet



Report Attributes Desired (Policies)

Knowledge of: Institutions that don’t weed

Formalized lending, weeding & retention policies

Preservation policies

Last-copy policies

Circulation Availability: Circulation policies (Does the item circulate?)

Lending policies (How quickly will I receive item I requested; how long will I have the item?)



Report attributes needing further discussion

1. Number of Copies per Institution

2. Physical Location of Copies within an Institution

Second Group felt distinction that an item is in Storage versus regular circulating collection is not needed

If it exists within partner’s circulation, assume accessibility to the item

3. Knowledge of Circulation Frequency (low-circulating items)



Report “Nice to Have’s”

Knowledge of other institutions’ collection interests

Geographic proximity of other institution

Flag when an item exists in few institutions (rarity)

Scheduled reporting

Consortium-centric reports Ensure copy preservation within a consortium

Consortial lending agreements

Extra-consortial reports

Preferred partners registry to inform reports



Alternative Report Uses

Retention & preservation decisions

Collection development (possibly via integration with ILL policies registry)

Inform other institutions about holdings to increase usage of stored collections


Next Steps

Confirm questionable report attributes

Identify preliminary steps / groundwork of data / databases needed


THANK YOU!

oclc online computer library center nast report attributes ala midwinter 2007 meeting january 21,...

Documents