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

Thu Jan 26 17:21:20 EST 2012

That’s a good point, but I think most libraries, aside from Wayne State, worked in some flexibility in their withdrawal candidate numbers.  So for GVSU, I think we were looking at around 60,000 titles, but we don’t think we’ll be withdrawing that many titles.  So if I end up with even 1,000 or 2,000 titles in my pool that happen to be “high use” titles at GVSU, or even titles that are of local interest for one reason or another (authorship, emerging area of curricular growth, etc.) I’ll be able to retain those titles without really impacting my bottom line.

Doug

From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Barbara J Cockrell
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:00 PM
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Cc: Randy Dykhuis
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] New MCLS print project participants

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'

________________________________
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<mailto:dykhuisr at mcls.org>
Skype:  randy dykhuis

_______________________________________________
Mcls-print-storage mailing list
Mcls-print-storage at lists.mlcnet.org<mailto: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/20120126/46a1f121/attachment-0001.html