P T . 1 : D E V E L O P I N G A N E V A L U A T I O N T O O L
CUNY E-BOOK TASK
FORCE:
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
(CUNY)
• 11 senior colleges, 7 community colleges, Macaulay
Honors College, and 5 graduate and...
AN INTRODUCTION TO OUR LIBRARIES
7
Community
Colleges
5
Graduate
Center and
Professional
Schools
Office of Library Service...
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES ADVISORY
COUNCIL (ERAC) OF CUNY
• 1 Representative from each campus library
• Usually the Electronic ...
TASK FORCE CHARGE:
• Task Force 1: Develop the evaluative criteria we
should be using to determine which, if any, e-book
c...
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
• Task Force 1:
• Nancy Egan, Chair, John Jay
College
• Linda Dickinson, Hunter College
• John Drobnick...
COMMITTEE MAKE-UP, TASK FORCE 1
62%
38%
Members by Institution Type
Senior College
Community
College
29%
22%21%
7%
7%
7%
7...
TASK FORCE 1
TASK FORCE 1
INITIAL MEETING
• Fleshing out the mission
• Determining broad categories:
Ease of Procurement
Content
Techni...
SHARING THE WORK
• Used categories to create outline
• Every category had at least one person.
• Shared articles, thoughts...
THE CHECKLIST
• URL: http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ebooktaskforce
• Categories and subcategories
• Questions under each ...
WEIGHTING SYSTEM
• Making the system work:
• Weighting system will be for this particular purpose
• Categories and subcate...
TASK FORCE CHARGE
• Task Force 2: Apply the model to two competing
vendors’ Ebook packages and make a
recommendation to th...
P T . 2 : A P P L Y I N G T H E E V A L U A T I O N T O O L
CUNY E-BOOK TASK
FORCE:
TASK FORCE, PT. 2
• Goal:
• To apply the checklist
and evaluate the
two competing
ebook packages
• To evaluate the
effecti...
COMMITTEE MAKE-UP, ROUND II
10%
50%
30%
10%
Members by institution type
Central Office
Senior College
Community
College
Gr...
EVALUATION IN ACTION
• Assigned 2 sections each for review
• Given a month to evaluate both ebook packages
• Base conclusi...
EVALUATING THE CHECK LIST
• Would the checklist help us evaluate each product
fully?
• Would the all or nothing points sys...
WHAT WE FOUND: EBOOKS
• Both ebook packages were excellent
• Use of the checklist teased out differences between
them and ...
WHAT WE FOUND: CHECKLIST
Pros
• Elicited great discussion
• The list covered a
range of scenarios but
easy to pick only
ap...
OUTCOMES
• Based on evaluation, change made to checklist
• Wrote findings up in a report, shared with University
Dean, E-r...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

10082013 ssp webinar_e-Books: Distribution Channels, Acquisition and Management

605 views

Published on

10-08-2013 SSP Webinar SSP-Web Seminar 4: e-Books: Distribution Channels, Acquisition and Management

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
605
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
154
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

10082013 ssp webinar_e-Books: Distribution Channels, Acquisition and Management

  1. 1. P T . 1 : D E V E L O P I N G A N E V A L U A T I O N T O O L CUNY E-BOOK TASK FORCE:
  2. 2. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (CUNY) • 11 senior colleges, 7 community colleges, Macaulay Honors College, and 5 graduate and professional schools—all located throughout the 5 boroughs. • 269,000 degree-credit students; 270,000 certificate and professional students. • From certificate courses to Phd programs, CUNY offers postsecondary learning to a remarkably diverse population of students of all backgrounds from 208 countries.
  3. 3. AN INTRODUCTION TO OUR LIBRARIES 7 Community Colleges 5 Graduate Center and Professional Schools Office of Library Services 11 Senior Colleges Aleph catalog SFX link resolver EZ proxy Cataloging support E-resources Students Expertise Print collections
  4. 4. ELECTRONIC RESOURCES ADVISORY COUNCIL (ERAC) OF CUNY • 1 Representative from each campus library • Usually the Electronic Resources Librarian • Many consortium pricing arrangements are discussed and decided upon at ERAC (some funded by the University; others funded by individual libraries) • From this Committee, the University Dean of Libraries put together a task force.
  5. 5. TASK FORCE CHARGE: • Task Force 1: Develop the evaluative criteria we should be using to determine which, if any, e-book collection would best suit the needs of the University.
  6. 6. TASK FORCE MEMBERS • Task Force 1: • Nancy Egan, Chair, John Jay College • Linda Dickinson, Hunter College • John Drobnicki, York College • Madeline Ford, Hostos CC • Maria Kiriakova, John Jay College • Catherine Stern, LaGuardia CC • Lisa Tappeiner, Hostos CC • Mike Waldman, Baruch College • Task Force 2: • Angela Sidman, Central Office, Co-Chair • Nancy Egan, John Jay College, Co-Chair • Jane Fitzpatrick, Graduate Center, CUNY • Helen Georgas, Brooklyn College • Maria Kiriakova, John Jay College • Laroi Lawton, Bronx CC • Linda Roccos, College of Staten Island • Catherine Stern, LaGuardia CC • Lisa Tappeiner, Hostos CC • Susan Vaughn, Brooklyn College and Central Office
  7. 7. COMMITTEE MAKE-UP, TASK FORCE 1 62% 38% Members by Institution Type Senior College Community College 29% 22%21% 7% 7% 7% 7% Members by Functional Area acquisitions electronic resources collection management cataloging media public services chief
  8. 8. TASK FORCE 1
  9. 9. TASK FORCE 1 INITIAL MEETING • Fleshing out the mission • Determining broad categories: Ease of Procurement Content Technical Requirements Licensing Terms Collection Building Cataloging and Catalog Maintenance Compatibility with other Library Resources Administrative Functions User Experience Product Support for Librarians Library Culture
  10. 10. SHARING THE WORK • Used categories to create outline • Every category had at least one person. • Shared articles, thoughts, glossary terms, etc. on GoogleDocs • Used GoogleDoc information to fill in the outline • Second meeting & discussion to refine model
  11. 11. THE CHECKLIST • URL: http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ebooktaskforce • Categories and subcategories • Questions under each category and/or subcategory • An accompanying glossary and report
  12. 12. WEIGHTING SYSTEM • Making the system work: • Weighting system will be for this particular purpose • Categories and subcategories are assigned a weight • 1 is considered helpful, 5 is important, and 10 is very important or vital to the needs of the University community • Questions are used to flesh out each category (or subcategory) and determine how the vendor fares in each category • The vendor gets points—all or none in each category—based on whether they’ve met the criteria
  13. 13. TASK FORCE CHARGE • Task Force 2: Apply the model to two competing vendors’ Ebook packages and make a recommendation to the University Librarian.
  14. 14. P T . 2 : A P P L Y I N G T H E E V A L U A T I O N T O O L CUNY E-BOOK TASK FORCE:
  15. 15. TASK FORCE, PT. 2 • Goal: • To apply the checklist and evaluate the two competing ebook packages • To evaluate the effectiveness of the checklist • Method: • 10 people on committee • Cross section of functional areas and institutions represented • Each person evaluates two areas
  16. 16. COMMITTEE MAKE-UP, ROUND II 10% 50% 30% 10% Members by institution type Central Office Senior College Community College Graduate Center 30% 20%20% 10% 10% 10% Members by functional area E-resources Media Collection management Public services Acquisitions Cataloging
  17. 17. EVALUATION IN ACTION • Assigned 2 sections each for review • Given a month to evaluate both ebook packages • Base conclusions on: • Own evaluation • Information provided by the vendor • Feedback from colleagues • Regroup and discuss > Formally assign points
  18. 18. EVALUATING THE CHECK LIST • Would the checklist help us evaluate each product fully? • Would the all or nothing points system prove effective? • Are partial points needed? • Would discussion be productive? • Would one package come out the clear winner?
  19. 19. WHAT WE FOUND: EBOOKS • Both ebook packages were excellent • Use of the checklist teased out differences between them and allowed us to weigh our own values and come to a clear decision
  20. 20. WHAT WE FOUND: CHECKLIST Pros • Elicited great discussion • The list covered a range of scenarios but easy to pick only applicable ones • Provided a neutral avenue for considering products, bypassing vendor prejudices • The points worked! Cons • Written to cover any scenario, so quite long and time consuming to apply • For best results (and most likely consensus) multiple participants are needed
  21. 21. OUTCOMES • Based on evaluation, change made to checklist • Wrote findings up in a report, shared with University Dean, E-resources Advisory Committee, and on internal listserv of 300+ librarians • Allowed for harmonious decision-making • Transparent process • Participation and buy-in from all major groups • Basis of feedback provided to vendors • Shared survey instrument with other CUNY librarians • Available via Support Site

×