NGTS Campus Visits 090409


Published on

NGTS overview presentation used for August and September UC campus visits

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thank you, Sam, Karen, Patti, and all of the LAUC Assembly for the opportunity to publicly debut what we hope will be a wide and ongoing discussion of just how the UC’s will define Tech Services for the Next Generation. I am pleased that one of my colleagues on the Steering Team, Jim Dooley, is also here to join me in this ‘launch’.
  • These are the points the presentation will cover
  • NGTS picks up on the BSTF report in these areas, following up on NGM’s work on implementing recommendations to enhance search and retrieval, re-architect the OPAC
  • These BSTF recommendations will now be reviewed and implemented at a system-wide and network level
  • But it’s not like a great deal of this collaborative work and thinking has not already been underway for the last four years and more…
  • One key thrust that’s a bit different with NGTS is that the work will encompass a rethink of all what has been considered ‘Technical Services’, beyond just thinking about cataloging. These are just some of the activities in UC and nationally that are converging to heighten the need to rethink TS. Most esp the Financial Pressures Requires harmonization of UC cataloging policies and process revisions for effective implementation Requires cooperative approaches to acquisitions practices Requires new ways of working with vendors (book and subscription agents)
  • So the NGTS initiative was charged earlier this year and has spent the subsequent time crafting a vision and a plan.
  • Read the charge. ID Low hanging fruit: Joint approval plans in process thru SPSTF, HOTS expertise worksheet, HOTS survey of shelfready services in use at the campuses.
  • Note this graphic is based on Lorcan Dempsey’s “Some Context” presentation at the RLG Partners Meeting, Philadelphia, June 2, 2008. It is assumed that the work of NGTS will build not only on the strategic NGM devpt, but that the discovery pathways to the content will be many and will evolve and use a variety of tools. It assumes the collections will become increasingly diverse and digital. NGTS will build and expose the metadata and curate the content over appropriate life cycles of all these diverse collections of the UC Libraries.
  • While not a perfect taxonomy (there is some overlap), these broadly defined resource groups can be characterized as having common life-cycles encompassing acq, description, access, and preservation or long-term retention. For these purposes, format is considered a secondary characteristic.
  • Task force for each model will be charged to design and propose appropriate lifecycle models in each group, incorporating the values and principles as detailed earlier and in the Scope statement.
  • The process is aimed to draw on the widespread expertise of all the stakeholders throughout the system, do a kind of environmental scan of existing and emerging tech services options, and, importantly to engender wide discussions throughout the campus libraries. In complementing CDC’s emerging vision on the UC Collections, NGTS will foster a culture change whereby the ‘commodity’ and common resources require less of our total UC staff time to support, and we are able to focus more on the resources that distinguish UC.
  • Each group will be working on the same timetable of 3 phases.
  • NGTS Campus Visits 090409

    1. 1. Martha Hruska & Carol Ann Hughes August and September 2009 Next Generation Technical Services Rethinking Library Technical Services for the University of California
    2. 2. Next Gen Tech Services (NGTS) Context <ul><li>Bibliographic Services Task Force Report 2005: next steps </li></ul><ul><li>UC Related Initiatives over the last 4 years </li></ul><ul><li>Catalysts for Change </li></ul><ul><li>Next Gen Tech Services Charge </li></ul><ul><li>Next Gen Tech Services Scope </li></ul><ul><li>Next Gen Tech Services Process </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Outcomes </li></ul>
    3. 3. BSTF Report 2005 <ul><li>“ Within Library workflows and systems too much effort is going into maintaining and integrating a fragmented infrastructure. We need to look seriously at opportunities to centralize and/or better coordinate services and data, while maintaining appropriate local control, as a way of reducing effort and complexity and of redirecting resources to focus on improving the user experience.” </li></ul><ul><li>Adopting New Cataloging Practices </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting Continuous Improvement </li></ul>
    4. 4. BSTF Report: Next Steps <ul><li>Rearchitect cataloging workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Select the appropriate metadata scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Manually enrich metadata in important areas </li></ul><ul><li>Automate Metadata Creation </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting Continuous Improvement </li></ul>
    5. 5. UC Initiatives over the last 4 years+ <ul><li>CAMCIG Reports: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>California Electronic Documents Cataloging Pilot Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brainstorming Draft for CAMCIG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata Survey Results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single-Separate Record Report to HOTS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Using OCLC As A Single Cataloging Tool HOTS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>UC CONSER Funnel </li></ul><ul><li>CDL/HOTS agreement to fund temporary SCP Chinese cataloger </li></ul><ul><li>SCP Scope Statement Review </li></ul><ul><li>HOTS Cataloging Expertise Spreadsheet </li></ul><ul><li>Shared Print Projects CDL / CDC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Journals (Licensed journals, JSTOR, IEEE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Canadiana </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CDC Prospective Shared Print Monographs Task Force </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Catalysts for Change: Beyond Cataloging and Bibliographic Services <ul><li>LC Final Report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control </li></ul><ul><li>Next-Generation Melvyl </li></ul><ul><li>Changing user expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Mass Digitization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hathi Trust </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web Archiving </li></ul><ul><li>Expose Hidden Collections </li></ul><ul><li>Manage the life –cycle of born-digital and other emerging formats </li></ul><ul><li>UC-wide and campus financial pressures </li></ul>
    7. 7. Next Gen Tech Services <ul><li>Executive Team : charged by the University Librarians to guide the Steering Team, to make resource allocation and other higher‐level decisions, to provide progress reports to the University Librarians, and to develop needed policy for approval by the University Librarians. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Members : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bruce Miller, Chair (University Librarian, UC Merced) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Laine Farley (Executive Director, CDL) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Brian Schottlaender (University Librarian, UCSD) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ginny Steel (University Librarian, UCSC) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Martha Hruska (UCSD, chair of Steering Team) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Steering Team : charged to develop a framework for the next three to five years for Next Generation Technical Services for the UC Libraries. The Steering Team will: </li></ul><ul><li>Members: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Martha Hruska , Chair (AUL Collection Services, UCSD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jim Dooley (Head, Collection Services, UC Merced) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emily Stambaugh (Shared Print Manager, CDL) Ivy Anderson (CDL) interim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carol Hughes (AUL, Public Services, UC Irvine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Armanda Barone (Asst. Hd. Tech Services UC Berkeley) </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. NGTS: Charge <ul><li>Develop a framework for the next three to five years for Next Generation Technical Services for the UC Libraries. The Steering Team will: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>address the broad transformative changes that will move technical services to the network level and that will reap the benefits of collaborative technical services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>identify areas of coordination and collaboration among the UC Libraries technical services operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>quickly implement identified “low‐hanging fruit” changes (with approval from the Executive Team) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. NGTS Scope: Values & Guiding Principles <ul><li>Speed processing </li></ul><ul><li>Technical services as a system-wide, single enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>Start with existing metadata that is “good enough” from all available sources </li></ul><ul><li>Allow for Continuous improvements to “good enough” from the UC Libraries and beyond: expert communities, vendors, other libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Eliminate redundant work </li></ul><ul><li>Make *all* the UC Collections easily found and used </li></ul><ul><li>Focus cataloging and other metadata description efforts on unique resources </li></ul>
    10. 10. User Environment Library and Network Resources Collection Management Environment Commonly Held (Roman Scripts) Commonly Held (Non-Roman Scripts) UC Unique Collections 21 st Century Resources Metadata Content Get it Manage it Select it Find it
    11. 11. Information Resource Types <ul><li>1. Commonly Held Content in Roman Script </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a. Licensed resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b. Print publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c. Reformatted content (digitized, mass digitized, microfilmed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>d. Audio-visual materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e. Images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>f. Born digital publications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2. Commonly Held Content in Non-Roman Scr ipt </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a. Licensed resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b. Print publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c. Reformatted content (digitized, mass digitized, microfilmed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>d. Audio-visual materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e. Images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>f. Born digital publications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3. UC Unique Collections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a. Special Collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b. Archives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theses and dissertations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UC scholarship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Images </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4. 21 st Century Emerging Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a. Harvested websites and resources (Web at Risk) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b. Scholarly websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c. Blogs and other integrating resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>d. Maps </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e. GIS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>f. Datasets </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Task Group Charges <ul><li>Each task force will be charged to develop 1-3 models </li></ul><ul><li>Each model must: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Address processes for selection, acquisition, cataloging, and preservation or reformatting, including possibilities for outsourcing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporate the Values and Guiding Principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Address options for system-wide organization of Technical Services </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. NGTS Process <ul><li>Task Group members with mix of functional backgrounds </li></ul><ul><li>Consult just about all the UC stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HOTS, CAMCIG, ACIG, CDC, CDC Task Force on Prospective Monograph Shared Print, SCP, PAG, HOSC, HOPS, UCAC, SOPAG…. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Communications distributed as with Next Gen Melvyl </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web site / </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email updates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Campus visits </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. NGTS Process (continued) <ul><li>Proposed models vetted </li></ul><ul><li>Explore workflow, policies and best practices options </li></ul><ul><li>Identify and evaluate various potential enablers, such as new tools and services, policies, and current initiatives </li></ul>
    15. 15. Phase 1 – July - Oct. 2009 <ul><li>Research existing best practices and current initiatives within UC and beyond </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interview stakeholders and experts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify organizational structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collect evidence for proposed solutions, including throughput and discovery statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe when collaborative approaches to technical services ought to be considered/not considered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe when/if a collaborative technical services approach depends upon a shared UC collections approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider vendor or other contracting solutions when appropriate </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Phase 2 – Nov. 2009 – Feb. 2010 <ul><li>Outline proposed models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Include, as appropriate, selection, acquisition, cataloging, [electronic] resource management, harvesting, access services, digitization, preservation, or other relevant functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose workflows </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose policies and best practices needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose new tools, services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose organizational structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose funding models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify resource needs (including space requirements if any) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose governance models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify the collection development model best suited to the technical service model </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Phase 3 – March 2010 – May 2010 <ul><li>Analyze proposed models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conduct a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats (including barriers to adoption) analysis (SWOT) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose an assessment approach that monitors throughput and human resource effort over time and provides evidence of improvement in users’ ability to easily find and use materials </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Possible Outcomes <ul><li>Redefine, break down the silos of TS functions </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative approval plans </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative outsourcing and other vendor services </li></ul><ul><li>Improved tools for system-wide acquisitions & cataloging </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Shared Print in Place’ becomes norm rather than exception </li></ul><ul><li>Less redundant work  Campuses focus on local priorities </li></ul><ul><li>More collections managed and accessible with less total FTE </li></ul>
    19. 19. Follow monthly reports at the web site starting in September: /