[Mcls-print-storage] New MCLS print project participants

[Barbara J Cockrell]

My only concern about new groups starting up under our existing criteria is that on reflection these may not be the best criteria that could have been used. I'm thinking about the reliance on group circ.data and not being able to take advantage of variation in individual circulation among the libraries. I just don't want to get locked into using a a set of criteria that its impossible to revise moving forward. Barbara Dr Barbara Cockrell, Associate Dean for Collections & Technical Services, University Libraries, Western Michigan University, 1903, W. Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5353 phone 269-387-5143 fax 269-387-5077 'University Libraries: a recognized essential partner in enriching and elevating all aspects of scholarship at WMU' ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Way" <wayd at gvsu.edu>
> To: "Randy Dykhuis" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>, mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:40:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] New MCLS print project participants
> Hello, everyone,
> I hadn’t seen any follow-up to this or to our previous thread so I
> wanted to share GVSU’s thoughts.
> Related to new libraries joining the group, we feel what Randy is
> proposing makes sense and we support the idea of two (or possibly
> more) parallel groups that would join down the road. We can all work
> together on practices and agreements so that when we all merge
> together there are no bumps.
> Regarding the circulation threshold issue, we want to reiterate our
> support for the three-circs-per-library model that gets us to that
> 700,000+ number. I know some libraries haven’t chimed in on the list
> with support, questions, or concerns about that, but we’d like to
> continue to move forward. We are on a bit of a time-crunch when it
> comes to weeding, as are (I believe) Wayne State and Saginaw Valley,
> so we’d like to make sure we can get our weeding in this
> spring/summer. So I guess if there are libraries with major concerns
> we’d like to hear them on this list or see if we can arrange a call to
> talk about them so we can continue to move forward on our regularly
> scheduled calls with all of the other details that need to be
> addressed.
> Anyway, that’s GVSU’s two cents…
> Doug and Julie
> From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org
> [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> Dykhuis
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:17 AM
> To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
> Subject: [Mcls-print-storage] New MCLS print project participants
> We began the discussion about adding new participants during our
> conference call last week. Currently, we have two libraries that are
> ready to commit to the project: Oakland Univ and Hope College. The
> quickest and easiest way for these & other interested libraries to
> benefit from the work done so far is to treat each additional library
> as an independent project. These subsequent projects would benefit
> from the information collected during the initial analysis but the
> library would be under no obligation to follow the guidelines we're
> developing. When the data is refreshed, most likely in mid or late
> 2013, all participants subsequent to the original seven would be
> included in the new round of analysis.
> This approach strikes me as more ad hoc than I'd like to be. It
> appears to me that this project is saying that Michigan academic
> libraries overall gain from a collective approach to curation of their
> print monograph collections. If that's the case, then an ad hoc
> approach to the new participants, while not harmful, doesn't move us
> as a group closer to our goal.
> The suggestion that was made on the call that we investigate a second
> group seems to move us further down the field. If we go down that
> path, that group would not be informed by the analysis of the first
> group, but it would have the advantage of adhering to the criteria we
> have already set and there would be coherent collective action by that
> set of libraries. The libraries in that group would all share the
> costs & benefits of the joint activity, just as the original 7 have.
> So after thinking about all that, I wondered about this kind of
> scenario:
> February 15 - April 30: Open window for participants in a second group
> May - Sept: Analysis & pick lists for group 2
> August/Sept 2013: Refresh data & combine groups (This could be
> deferred until later depending on how quickly deselection is taking
> place in participating libraries.)
> Theoretically, this model could be expanded to a third group as well.
> As a whole, the state doesn't gain maximum benefit until all
> participating libraries are in one group but it seems like there would
> be more greater gains with multiple small groups than one group and
> several stand-alone projects until the refresh 18 or 20 months from
> now.
> Rick and I have had some initial back & forth on this and he raised
> legitimate questions about timeliness of adding new participants &
> cost of the collective analysis if we go the route of forming another
> group. I also have questions about the effectiveness of the collective
> analysis if all participants in the second group are from smaller
> libraries. But maybe that doesn't matter?
> There may be other ways to approach this.
> =========================
> Randy Dykhuis
> Executive Director
> Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS)
> Lansing, MI & Indianapolis, IN
> Phone: (800) 530-9019 x119
> Fax: (517) 492-3879
> Cell: (517) 927-5121
> E-mail: dykhuisr at mcls.org
> Skype: randy dykhuis
> _______________________________________________
> Mcls-print-storage mailing list
> Mcls-print-storage at lists.mlcnet.org
> http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/mcls-print-storage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120126/0f88b349/attachment.html