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

[Randy Dykhuis]

Thanks, Rick. This sounds very good. I'll touch bases with Kelly & 
Adrienne to let them know what's going on and we can get them rolling.

=========================
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 



"Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org> wrote on 01/27/2012 12:12:54 PM:

> From:
> 
> "Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org>
> 
> To:
> 
> "'Randy Dykhuis'" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 01/27/2012 12:12 PM
> 
> Subject:
> 
> RE: [Mcls-print-storage] New MCLS print project participants
> 
> Randy et al,
> 
> We’ve discussed this among ourselves at SCS and have a few thoughts.
> What if we were to:
> 
> 1.       Open the window until April 30th for new participants (as 
> Randy suggests).
> 
> 2.       But, while waiting to learn about other participants, 
> proceed immediately with loading and normalizing data for Oakland 
> and Hope. As with all the pilot libraries, we’ll need to work with 
> them on data extract, normalization, and production of individual 
> Collection Summary reports. That work could happen while additional 
> libraries were being recruited.
> 
> 3.       SCS could also use this time to experiment with the data, 
> gauging the impact of new arrivals on the original pilot data. This 
> would be for development purposes only—we would NOT make any changes
> to the list generated for the pilot group. We understand and support
> the need to freeze that data now—or as soon as we’re all agreed on 
> the criteria. We would experiment only with a copy of that data set,
> looking for options for accommodating mid-cycle libraries in a way 
> that might benefit both them and the pilot libraries. 
> 
> 4.       This approach would allow everyone to move forward. The 
> pilot libraries could begin working their allocated titles from the 
> 743K list. Oakland and Hope could proceed immediately with the first
> stages of analysis. MCLS could recruit additional libraries. SCS 
> could experiment with models for adding new libraries. 
> 
> 5.       By April 30th, we would know how many other libraries might
> join. Based on the SCS experiments and discussions among the group, 
> we could decide how best to proceed. This may well be a second group
> of 6-10 libraries (in which case we’d have data for two of them 
> already loaded and normalized), or may be some other approach that 
> is suggested by the SCS data work. 
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> Cheers,
> Rick
> 
> 
> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120127/58b9513b/attachment.html