CMS Committee and Interest Group Reports, Midwinter 2014

Continuing Education Committee

CMS Continuing Education discussed their new charge of identifying and monitoring standards, and also ways to expand educational opportunities related to collection management. They are curious about their role related to the committee that developed from the ALCTS Standards Task Force, and look forward to working with CMS to develop this. They also want to connect with other committees and groups doing work with standards. Continuing Education also discussed ways to increase awareness of standards and their importance through webinars and other learning experiences.

—Reported by Bleue J. Benton

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee met on Sunday morning. Minutes were taken by Section Secretary Andrea Wirth and have been submitted separately.

The Midwinter CMS Forum was titled: “Researcher Networking and Profile Systems: Library Collections and Liaison Opportunities.”

Approximately 90 people were present. There were 3 speakers: Paolo Mangiafico, Coordinator of Scholarly Communication Technologies, Duke University Libraries, Griffin M Weber, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medicine and the Chief Technology Officer of Harvard Medical School and Director of the Biomedical Research Informatics Core at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and Steve Adams, Life Sciences Librarian at Northwestern University.

Abstract: Researcher networking and profile systems such as VIVO, Symplectic Elements, Elsevier's SciVal Experts, and Harvard Catalyst Profiles present interesting opportunities for libraries as they continue to address the evolving information needs of their constituents. Such systems might offer librarians and libraries opportunities for extensive new engagement with campus research environments, including: increased participation in team-based research projects and further development of born-digital collections of scholarly materials through the leveraging of existing library collections and campus academic support infrastructures. Speakers will discuss their experience working with (and in some cases developing) profile systems at their institutions, addressing library-related benefits and challenges associated with their implementation.

The assessment of the session was very positive with many people asking for even more detail particularly with how more librarians could become involved in this type of system as liaisons.

—Reported by Ellen Safley

Planning Committee

The committee met on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 8:30am. Each member reported in on their Interest Group. There were no problems to report from the ones represented. This year the Committee will be reviewing both the Chief Collection Development Officers Interest Group and the Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group. We will communicate through e-mail during the Spring 2014 and report our reviews later in the year.

—Reported by Beth Bernhardt

Publications Committee

The committee met on Monday, February 3, 2014, at 2 p.m. The committee discussed succession planning for the Sudden Selectors Series and will contact the CMS Executive Committee for guidance on whether the current editor can be re-appointed and if there's room in the budget for splitting the duties with a co-editor. The Series is in good shape for the next few years.

  1. The Sudden Selector’s Guide to Physics has been published. This book was delayed due to editorial issues but has now been completed.
  2. Guide to Geography and GIS was accepted by the ALCTS Publications Committee but then sent back by the ALCTS editor. The authors have re-written this title and it now has to go through the Collection Management Section (CMS) Executive Committee but perhaps not through the ALCTS Publications Committee.
  3. The Sudden Selector’s Guide to Children’s Literature has been under revision since 2007. Helene will send this manuscript to Geoff Morse to review.
  4. The Sudden Selector’s Guide to English is ready for final revisions. The committee decided to make the deadline for then author to submit final revisions as the ALA Annual Meeting in 2014.
  5. The Government Publications Guide required a revision since last spring. The revised version is ready for review - Helene will send this manuscript to Emily to review.
  6. The Anthropology Guide is ready for review. Ed Lener will look at this manuscript.
  7. The Political Science Guide has a complete draft that seems to be in good shape. Miranda Bennett will look at this manuscript.
  8. The Romance Languages guide may still need some work. Heath Martin will look at this one.
  9. The Art guide has two chapters completed but no new material has been received this fall.
  10. The Philosophy guide will need some revision as it is too long at the present time.
  11. At Annual the committee can discuss if more Sudden Selector’s Guide projects should be recruited.

Speakers were selected for the committee's Annual Forum. Their names will be announced within the next week.

Reported by Emily Prather-Rodgers

Administration of Collection Development Interest Group

The committee met on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 4:30pm. Approximately 19 people attended.

After a round robin identifying the most pressing issues for each individual, the main topics identified and discussed further were:

  1. Space/weeding/storage - there is a tension in putting things in storage because if it's not seen it often is not used. Weeding creates has problems - how to you decide on what to weed to get the amount of space needed? How do you insure there is a copy of last resort when so many libraries are weeding? This might be a role for consortia to insure that at least one copy remains in their group. Could the availability of pay-per-view impact weeding decisions.
  2. With budgets diminishing what role to cd policies play? Should we be writing new ones that are more targeted, such as by LC call number?
  3. How you structure costs for journals/databases in the consortial environment? Suggestions were by size of institution, usage, formula such as FTE/overhead equal split/materials budget, set prices by size of institution.
  4. Impact of discovery layers on usage statics.
  5. E-reader issues - do you checkout readers, are there discrete collections on the readers, Bexar (TX) County Library model, costs of maintaining and upgrading equipment.

—Reported by Elizabeth Avery

Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Interest Group

The Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Interest Group (CCDO) met on Saturday, January 25, 2014 from 9-11am at the Doubletree Hotel for our 2014 Midwinter Meeting. There were approximately 77 people in attendance, 33 of whom are members of the Interest Group.

CCDO approved a new charge and membership criteria (copied below), as part of a membership review and in keeping with the ALCTS Content Management Section guidelines on Interest Group renewal.

Charge: To discuss the various collection development and collection management issues of concern to large research libraries. To provide a forum for the exchange of information on new developments, techniques, challenges and opportunities in managing library collections, especially large, diverse collections supporting a broad spectrum of instructional, research, and cultural programs.

Membership Criteria:

Membership is limited to the chief collection development officers of:

  • the first 40 academic research libraries according to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Investment Index (using a five-year average at the time of review);
  • two non-ARL university libraries (Stanford University and California Digital Library);
  • one public library which is an ARL member (New York Public Library);
  • four national libraries (Library of Congress, National Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine and Smithsonian); and
  • representatives from ARL and the Center for Research Libraries.

Membership is reviewed every five years. (Last review completed in January 2014; next schedule review will be in 2019)

In addition to the major business item of membership review, the meeting included two informative discussions. The first was on “Collaborative Ventures: How do we respond to various calls for funding in support of Knowledge Unlatched, …. etc.” and was led by Bob Wolven, Associate University Librarian for Bibliographic Services and Collection Development, Columbia University.

The second was a presentation followed by discussion on an investigation of coordinated collection development in US Local History, led by Elizabeth Bennett, Librarian for History and History of Science, and David Magier, Associate University Librarian for Collection Development from Princeton University.

—Reported by Daniel M. Dollar

Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group

The Midwinter 2014 meeting plan was to include lightning round discussion of four current topics, which were to be introduced and moderated by Josephine Crawford. The meeting cancelled due to her unexpected absence from conference.

Irene Ke (Vice-Chair) attended CMC Executive Meeting, replacing Josephine Crawford. She also surveyed topics and methods of other Interest Group meetings, as part of an effort to identify if a valuable niche exists for the Practitioners Interest Group.

Preparations are underway for the Practitioners meeting at ALA Annual Conference in Las Vegas.

—Reported by Josephine Crawford

Collection Evaluation and Assessment Interest Group

The interest group met on Sunday, January 26, 2014, at 1pm; approximately 30 people attended. The purpose of the meeting was two-fold: 1) Generate a discussion surrounding challenges of usage statistics 2) Use innovative exercise to generate program ideas for ALA Annual. The group was successful on both counts. The room had a lively discussion on current challenges facing understanding usage statistics and each table contributed thoughts on this to the wider audience. Several challenges that were brought up were:

  1. Issues with how vendors “count” a “use.”
  2. eBook issues with call numbers and subject proxy.
  3. Print serials, how to calculate use when they don't circulate?
  4. What is good enough when it comes to usage statistics?
  5. What happens after evaluation? What action items should we take after the data is evaluated?

After the discussion, the attendees were tasked with a 30 minute exercise called brainwriting. This is a project management tool used to generate a large number of ideas in a short amount of time. In total, the group generated 76 topic ideas they would like to see on a program at ALA Annual. The chair has compiled this data and will send this out to attendees along with a link to a SurveyMonkey form to prioritize which topics they would like the group to focus on.

—Reported by Jackie Bronicki

Collection Management and Electronic Resources Interest Group

The interest group met on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 3pm. Approximately 105 people attended.

Print usage is in decline in most academic libraries while electronic usage continues to increase. Most academic libraries spend the majority of their materials budgets on electronic resources while most library technical services units are still organized to manage print resources. The Collection Management and Electronic Resources Interest Group held a discussion about staffing levels for meeting the future needs of libraries. What changes can or should be made in library organization, training, staffing priorities and positions to improve electronic resources management? A short presentation on electronic resources staffing needs was presented by George Stachokas from Purdue University.

A lively and interactive discussion followed the presentation. Several questions were discussed:

  • Does the number of staff assigned to managing print resources outnumber electronic resources management staff at your library?
  • Are there any provisions in place at your library to retrain staff who manage print resources to manage electronic resources?
  • Are current staffing levels and skill sets adequate to meet current needs? What about anticipated future needs?
  • How well are libraries organized to manage electronic resources in general?

Discussion on additional topics of interest was also encouraged by the moderators.

The Interest Group will be looking for a Vice-Chair/Chair Elect for 2014-2015.

—Reported by Richard Guajardo

Collection Management for Public Libraries Interest Group

The committee met on Monday, January 27, 2014 at 1:30pm. Approximately 30 people attended.

We went around the table for agenda items.

Streaming - Hoopla: Los Angeles Public Library was a beta site. Music is really good, the area that has really taken off is audio books. Some libraries are reporting that they had to put up money up front that is then debited for per use. The Free Library of Philadelphia ran into Hoopla requiring SIP2 (Standard Interchange Protocol 2) authentication, which they don’t use, and is a deal breaker even though. It’s odd since music is free online (obviously). Some say movies are getting better. Brooklyn and New York Public Library (NYPL) haven’t taken the plunge. OverDrive is converting to streaming video, they hired someone from YouTube to work with studios and contracts, and are converting our purchased downloadable video content to streaming where possible and offering a credit or later conversion for nonconvertible content. San Antonio is using IndieFlix and it’s not doing as poorly as expected. They did a promotion, there aren’t a lot of users but it is growing, and the content is growing possibly even more than they are promoting to us. Some folks are using AccessVideo which has PBS content for which you might have holds queues, and public performance rights. Public performance rights are often OK as long as you don’t charge admission. OverDrive will require selection, Hoopla just puts it all out there. In addition, the OverDrive streaming model will still be one copy one user, instead of unlimited use.

Is anyone buying fewer DVDs? - Brooklyn Public Library and NYPL are working together and have sometimes wildly disparate budgets depending on area. DVD is an example, reduced spending is reallocated to e-books. Some are not buying replacement copies when streaming content is available. We’re over a barrel with regard to pricing and content.

Blu-ray - The Free Library of Philadelphia is just starting to circulate Blu-ray. There was not a huge outcry from their patrons for this format, but since there are titles that are only available in combo packs or on Blu-ray rather than regular DVD.

Online Learning - Webinars, internal staff training videos, public facing how-to videos produced by libraries.

Lifelong Learning - Learning Express, Mango, (in library only), Treehouse, Universal Class, Brainfuse, and Gale Learn4Life. Some are finding success with Universal Class, others are finding the content available free is comparable and serves patron needs adequately. Some are considering the Gale product with GED (General Educational Development) certification, it might run into accreditation issues. At the OCLC symposium Friday there was talk of making accreditation federal instead of state, which could be a huge game changer for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

Strategic Priorities – Arlington, VA and DC Public Library (DCPL) stopped buying CDs 4 years ago and 1.5 years ago respectively, and never looked back. DCPL stopped buying Playaways at the same time. Others never started with Playaways in the first place. Many of us are still buying CDs and they still circulate like mad and have tons of holds.

One of our group is outsourcing selection after reducing staff from 8 selectors down to 1. They use BroDart for Easy Children’s selection and took a year to get the kinks worked out. It’s not working with B&T for Adult Nonfiction yet.

This elicited the question of how nonfiction is performing at other libraries. Can’t really decrease nonfiction for homework help and school age children. Baltimore County had every library do a shelf allocation study looking at how they had their collections arranged and how they were used and found they should put more space to media and less to nonfiction.

Some discussion of the following took place:

  • Taking patron suggestions for purchase, and how the workflows are managed once the suggestions are received;
  • Floating; and
  • Decreases in circulation (and ideas for shifting reporting).

—Reported by Peggy Murphy