Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Using date in collaboration: Experiences from the Maine Shared Collections Strategy

506 views

Published on

Matthew Revitt's June 6th, 2013 presentation from the Library Journal Data-Driven Libraries Part 1: Analyzing Data to Manage Print Collections webinar.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Using date in collaboration: Experiences from the Maine Shared Collections Strategy

  1. 1. Matthew Revitt, Maine Shared CollectionsStrategy Program ManagerUsing data in collaboration: Experiencesfrom the Maine Shared CollectionsStrategyMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  2. 2.  9 Maine Shared Collections Strategy (MSCS) partnerscome together in an effort to create a strategy for theshared management of print collections in the State. Collaborate to make decisions about the storage,retention, and preservation of print materials (bothbooks and journals) as well as looking for ways tointegrate digital editions into a state-wide catalog. IMLS supported projectMSCS 101Matthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  3. 3. Project objectives Workable strategy for stewardship of the major print collections inMaine Analyze print monographs for duplication & usage Identify digital surrogates and provide access in union catalog Identify long-term retention commitments from libraries Implementation of on-demand services Electronic- and print-on-demand options in catalogs Define sustainable business model for beyond grant & partners Financial model Governance structure Memorandum Of UnderstandingMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  4. 4.  Top level: What monographs should be designated for long-term retention? What is an equitable and/or common-sense distribution ofretention responsibilities? What monographs are candidates for incorporating intoPOD/EOD services (via local or shared catalogs) by virtue ofHathiTrust or InternetArchive public domain material? What monograph copies (by library) could optionally bedeselected, once retention decisions have been finalized?What do we want to learn from thedata?Matthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  5. 5.  Specifically: How many copies of a particular work are owned by partnerlibraries? How many of those are circulating copies? How often has the title circulated?What was the last circulationdate? How many titles/copies are uniquely held in the group? InMaine? InWorldCat? How do subject strengths compare across the group? Which titles are represented in HathiTrust, InternetArchive Overlap between general collections and special collections Others to be determined from the group’s combined data setWhat do we want to learn from thedata?Matthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  6. 6.  Data elements:Data required for analysisMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/ Item record number Created date Barcode Itype (value in the item thatdefines how it circulates) Volume and copy Item call number Location Total checkout and total renewal Year to date circulation Last year circulation Last checkin Out date Last out date Reserve notes Internal use count Icode2 (Contributed to unioncatalog) Circulation Status
  7. 7.  Dirty data issue – required OCLC reclamation before can accuratelycompare Approximately 3.9 million records sent More involved process than originally thought, but successfullycleaned up libraries’ records OCLC circulation data report – data inconsistencies Constant change – Ongoing library withdrawals & introduction ofninth libraryIssues with the data setMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  8. 8.  Importance of collections analysis tools for heavy lifting -Journey from DIY, viaWCA to SCS/DIY DIY: Not feasible to develop local collection analysis system OCLCWorldCat CollectionsAnalysisTool - unable to meetMSCS needs & delays in analytics product Investigate other products Sustainable Collections Services (SCS) only could meetMSCS requirements -Tailored reports & consulting supportHelp, we can’t do this alone!Matthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  9. 9.  Using the MSCS record set SCS: Filtered out-of scope bibliographic records including: Government Documents, non-monographicmaterial, Non-language material, non-print resources, records missing OCLC numbers,Bibliographic/author mismatches with OCLC and multiple OCLC numbers per record Eliminated duplicate bibliographic records Normalized call numbers Eliminated trailing spaces in control numbers Validated OCLC numbers Matched bibliographic records on OCLC numbers (with title string check) LCCN/title-string lookups for records lacking OCLC numbers Identified and accommodated unusual implementations of MARC Mapped item-level data and interpret codes Provided Dewey Decimal numbers for records that lacked them SCS matched titles to external data sources - OCLCWorldCat (US and StateHoldings), HathiTrust Public Domain and In-Copyright items and InternetArchive (a first for SCS)SCS dataMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  10. 10. M S CS Group Collection Summar y :Collection usage
  11. 11. M S C S G r o u p C o l l e c t i o nS u m m a r y : O C L C Wo r l d C a tc o u n t s
  12. 12. MSCS Group CollectionS u m m a r y : M S C S g ro u poverlap
  13. 13. M S C S G r o u p C o l l e c t i o nS u m m a r y : L o c a lp r o t e c t i o n r u l e s
  14. 14. MSCS Group CollectionS u m m a r y : H at h i Tr us t &Inter net Archive overlap
  15. 15. M S C S G r o u p C o l l e c t i o nS u m m a r y : S u b j e c t s
  16. 16. What to do with all this data Danger of drowning in data! Importance of focusing on a subset of the data
  17. 17. 295,425208,430393,391341,231232,054403,284374,062204,219267,658-200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001 2 3+Number of MSCS Libraries HoldingTitleZeroCirculations1-3 Circulations
  18. 18.  Begin with titles held by only 1-2 partners.The following criteria formaking decisions on these titles were developed: Analyze and take action only on pre-2003 copies Retain the copies if any circulation or internal use Retain material that falls into local protection categories (SpecificMaine items) even if no circulation Retain Special Collections/Archives copies even if no circulation Retain materials on course reserves even if no circulation Retain unique in OCLC (only 0-9 copies in OCLC) even if nocirculation Compare remaining 0 circulation copies with both HathiTrust andInternet ArchiveMSCS retention criteriaMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  19. 19. MSCS scenario one
  20. 20. MSCS scenario one
  21. 21.  What to do about the remaining 50% of items - thoseheld by 3 or more libraries Requires more in-depth collections analysis looking atfactors including: Circulation rates Available storage space Subject strengths Loan periodsFuture scenario developmentMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  22. 22. Disclosing retention decisionsin OCLC & locally
  23. 23. DIY to expand to smaller librariesMatthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/
  24. 24. Matthew RevittMSCS Program Mangermatthew.revitt@maine.eduwww.maineinfonet.net/mscs/@MESharedCollsThank you!Matthew Revitt,MSCS Program Manager www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/

×