Download to read offline
![Collaboration Model 1: “I live in an apartment building - I just want
to know my neighbors”
Principles:
I need network level information to be more efficient and smart about my own local CD and CM decisions
My own local decisions will be fed into network level decision making whether these are centralized or local
No need for an MOU nor governing structure but it can function to supplement one
I need to be aware of multiple buildings and multiple collaborative models (models 2-4) even if I don’t participate
I can choose to belong to model 1, model 2, model 3, model 4 when maturity levels/need increases or decreases
Expectations:
Data should be efficient to allow me to make quick decisions [what inputs are required?]
Data about my own decisions need to be registered [how? where?]
Data about my own local usage needs to be registered [how? where?]
Way to locally fund, select, and deselect](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/cclpalasession2024-6-29-240712150505-dc54b585/75/Carpenter-Hammer-and-Nadav-Manes-Collaborative-Collections-Lifecycle-Project-Update-16-2048.jpg)
Carpenter, Hammer, and Nadav-Manes "Collaborative Collections Lifecycle Project Update"
The document outlines the agenda for the June 29, 2024 ALA update session, focusing on collaboration models and the Collaborative Collections Lifecycle Project (CCLP) initiatives to enhance library resource access and stewardship through improved practices and technology. It emphasizes the project's goals, including developing governance structures, creating best practices for collaborative collections, and fostering interoperability among libraries and service providers. Supported by various institutions and a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the document also highlights the importance of community engagement and innovation in shaping equitable library resource access.
More Related Content
Similar to Carpenter, Hammer, and Nadav-Manes "Collaborative Collections Lifecycle Project Update"
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
Carpenter, Hammer, and Nadav-Manes "Collaborative Collections Lifecycle Project Update"
- 1.
- 2. Meeting Agenda 1. Introductions& Background 2. Collaboration models 3. Description of the focus of CCLIP Working Groups a. Acquisitions b. Assessment/Data Analysis c. Cataloging/Metadata d. Collections Development & Selection e. Infrastructure f. Organizational Strategy & Governance g. Consortia (Newly announced) h. Vendors (forthcoming in Q3 2024) i. Publishers (forthcoming in Q3 2024) 4. Progress on UX Work and prototype mockups 5. Next Steps in the CCLP Project, new groups 6. Q&A
- 3. Thank you forthe support! The CCLP project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Grant #: LG-252384-OLS-22. For more information about this grant visit: https:/ /www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/lg-252384-ols-22
- 4. We are gratefulfor the support and contributions of: ● Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) ● Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) ● Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) ● Center for Research Libraries ● Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries ● Minitex ● Orbis Cascade Alliance, ● Boston Library Consortium ● Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST) ● Virginia's Academic Library Consortium (VIVA) ● Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) ● Ithaka S+R ● Index Data, LLC ● ISSN International Centre ● Paratext, LLC ● Cornell University Library ● Columbia University Libraries ● Johns Hopkins University Libraries ● New York University Libraries ● Rutgers University Libraries ● Tulane University Libraries ● University of Delaware Library Museums and Press ● University of Denver Libraries ● University of Pittsburgh Library System ● Washington & Jefferson College ● Duke University Library and Press ● JSTOR ● Project MUSE In addition, we like to thank individuals from Brandeis University Library, The Internet Archive, Princeton University Library, Bloomsbury Publishing, Hathi Trust, The California Digital Library, New York Public Library, University of Miami Libraries, Yale University Libraries, The Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP), and many more supporting the CCLIP Working Groups
- 5. Mission & Vision Mission Throughcollaboration and innovation with trusted partners in an interoperable, community-owned infrastructure, CCLP will create best practices, improve standards, and develop prototype middleware to empower value-driven library collecting, increase collection diversity, availability and access, and improve stewardship and institutional efficiency in a collaboration-first environment. Vision Our vision is for a world in which all libraries may have and steward equitable, financially sustainable, and efficient access to library resources and the scholarly record by fostering an ecosystem of interoperable systems, standards, and open collaboration among libraries, publishers, and service providers.
- 6. Core Values andPrinciples Co-ownership of project outputs Provider-neutral approaches Interoperability Engagement of community promoting mutual understanding & stewardship for collaborating around collections, including models/mechanisms for acquiring and accessing open content Cost-effective, highly practical and usable solutions Data privacy & security http:/ /cclproject.org
- 7. Objectives - Whatwe’re here to do (in this phase of the project) CCLP Grant Project Phase 1 – Project Goals and Outputs (2022-2025) 1. Development of a project governance and community structure 2. Development of a Recommended Practice for the collaborative collections lifecycle *within the scope determined by the Steering Committee* a. Develop model workflows, model user experience & identify where systems improvements or standards are needed 3. Development of collaborative collections technology prototype middleware a. Scoped according to Steering Committee focus, with learnings/input coming from recommended practice and… 4. Develop a research report focused on gathering information from the landscape and analyzing examples with key learnings, focus on organizational strategy (ITHAKA S+R) – COMING SOON! a. Outputs incorporated into Steering committee conversations; prototyping; recommended practices
- 8. Steering Committee Kim Armstrong,WRLC Todd Carpenter, NISO (Project Co-PI) Jeff Carroll, Rutgers University Raym Crow, SPARC, Independent Consultant Jason Friedman, Canadian Research Knowledge Network Sebastian Hammer, Index Data Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver George Machovec, Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries Carolyn Morris, Ingram Jill Morris, PALCI (Co-PI) Boaz Nadav Manes, Lehigh University (Co-PI) Wendy Queen, Project MUSE Joe Salem, Duke University Rebecca Seger, ITHAKA Roger Schonfeld, ITHAKA S+R Kornelia Tancheva, University of Pittsburgh
- 9. The NISO CCLIP RecommendedPractice
- 10. CCLP Organizational Structure& Project Management Output: Recommended Practice Development Scoping, Values & Vision Output: Prototype Output: Landscape Analysis, Research & Learning from collaboration examples Output: CCLP Community of Practice
- 11. Recommended Practice Outline EachWorking Group will contribute sections to the overall recommended practice, including elements such as: ● Collaborative models ● Terminology ● Key activities and engagements ● What are keys to working together ● Identified barriers & challenges ● Specifics to the personas/roles ● Infrastructure/data needs ● Dependencies with other groups
- 12.
- 13. ● Ithaka S+R’srole is advising the Collaborative Collection Lifecycle Project (CCLP) Steering Group and conducted research on cooperative collections development practice in support of the initiative’s goals. ● Ithaka S+R Research Team: ○ Tracy Bergstrom, Program Manager for Collections and Infrastructure ○ Oya Y. Rieger, Senior Strategist ○ Roger C. Schonfeld, Vice President, Organizational Strategy & Libraries, Scholarly Communication, and Museums Ithaka S+R Consultancy Scope and Objectives
- 14. ● Provide ahigh-level landscape analysis (10 projects, services, programs) to contextualize specific collaborative collections development exemplars ● Held an interactive workshop with CCLP project team representatives to establish common ground on CCD landscape and situate the project’s goals ● Conducted eight CCD case studies and held a series of workshops to discuss findings ● Advising the CCLP Steering Group on organizational model, governance, sustainability, communication strategies, and engagement of interested parties ● Will Publish a final Ithaka S+R report to share the research outcomes Ithaka S+R Consultancy Scope and Objectives
- 15.
- 16. Collaboration Model 1:“I live in an apartment building - I just want to know my neighbors” Principles: I need network level information to be more efficient and smart about my own local CD and CM decisions My own local decisions will be fed into network level decision making whether these are centralized or local No need for an MOU nor governing structure but it can function to supplement one I need to be aware of multiple buildings and multiple collaborative models (models 2-4) even if I don’t participate I can choose to belong to model 1, model 2, model 3, model 4 when maturity levels/need increases or decreases Expectations: Data should be efficient to allow me to make quick decisions [what inputs are required?] Data about my own decisions need to be registered [how? where?] Data about my own local usage needs to be registered [how? where?] Way to locally fund, select, and deselect
- 17. Collaboration Model 3:“I live in an apartment building - I want to co-own it and build an optimized commune with everyone in the building” Principles: I need network level information to be more efficient and smart about network level CD and CM decisions Network level decision making will be centralized MOU and governing structure are needed and machine registered I need to be aware of multiple buildings, multiple collaborative models, and singular decisions (models 1-4) I can choose to belong to model 1, model 2, model 3, model 4 when maturity levels increases or decreases Expectations: Data should be efficient to allow me to make quick decisions Data about my own network decisions need to be registered and shared Data about prioritization of network level collaborations needs to be registered (load balancing) Way to jointly fund, select, communicate and deselect together
- 18. Collaboration Model 4:“I live in a high-tech city where every apartment building is interconnected, there’s a shared commitment to excellent public transportation & infrastructure, & it’s easy to navigate to any other city” Principles: I need networks level information to be more efficient and smart about network level CD and CM decisions Networks level decision making will be centralized MOUs and governing structures are needed and machine registered I need to be aware of multiple cities, buildings, multiple collaborative models, and singular decisions (models 1-4) I can choose to belong to model 1, model 2, model 3, model 4 when maturity levels increases or decreases Expectations: Data should be efficient to allow networks to make informed decisions Data about my city decisions need to be registered and shared Data about prioritization of city level collaborations needs to be registered (load balancing) Way to jointly fund, select, communicate and deselect together
- 19. Collaboration Model 2:“I live in an apartment building - I want to celebrate birthdays together with some (and maybe borrow sugar for the cake)” CCLP Project – Our Phase 1 Focus Who is in the apartment building? Principles: My collaboration is optional, with partner(s) that have a shared interest I need network level information to be more efficient and smart about my local and network level CD and CM decisions My own local decisions will be fed into network level decision making whether these are centralized or local Commitments and coordination needs increase, may consider an MOU and shared decision-making framework I still need to be aware of multiple buildings and multiple collaborative models (models 2-4) I can choose to belong to model 1, model 2, model 3, model 4 as maturity levels/need increases or decreases Expectations: Data should be efficient to allow me to make quick decisions (duplicate or not?) Data about my network decisions need to be registered and shared Data about prioritization of network level collaborations needs to be registered (load balancing) Way to jointly fund, select, communicate, and deselect together
- 20. Vestibulum congue Vestibulum congue Vestibulum congue Collaboration Coordination& Cooperation Awareness / Data Sharing Retrospective Management Prospective Selection & Acquisition Discover, Circulate & Share Access Preservation Collaboration Continuum Full Integration Data & Metadata Data & Metadata Data & Metadata Coordinated Preservation Selection Digitization, & Management Shared Print & Coordinated Weeding Shared management policies and practices supporting a healthy sharing ecosystem Traditional Resource Sharing Consortial ILL Coordinated Purchase Agreements e.g., with a conspectus approach Backlist / Frontlist Coordination Journals & Scholarly monographs Collaborative Purchases and Shared License Agreements Data & Metadata Data & Metadata SC Direction-Setting ACTIVITY **Add your comments to the diagram on this slide and then position up to 2 lightning bolts on the diagram to tell us where you think CCLP should prioritize its efforts Data & Metadata
- 21. Steering Committee Focus: “Makinggood on promise of shared print “Making use of data about our retained and shared collections” “Most bang for the buck is in coordinated purchasing” “Prospective as a primary focus” CCLP’s scope for this phase of the project will be to focus on improving our ability to prospectively make decisions together about acquiring collections within a “Model 2” optional collaboration structure where shared goals and needs are identified across more than one institution. To accomplish that scope, we’ll be using data about our retrospective collections and thinking about what standards /practices are required to allow for data sharing across institutions, as well as what social, organizational, and technical decision-making frameworks and infrastructures will help facilitate those arrangements. →Collaboration initiators, decision-makers and stakeholders may vary within this scope, depending on the use case and goals. We want each group thinking about identified personas, typical workflows and high impact opportunities + low-hanging fruit
- 22. Hypothetical example usingmodel 2: Lehigh and Pitt, Rutgers, and PALCI Let's say University of Pittsburgh and Lehigh want to collaborate on starting to collect materials in Ukrainian Studies as part of new University strategies to expand their on-site and DE Area studies programs. Rutgers will be joining later. Lehigh, Pitt, and Rutgers are part of PALCI. Pitt Lehigh Rutgers PALCI Provide needed resources to our users Avoid duplication of effort and waste of collections resources Sustainable
- 23.
- 24. Collections Development andSelection Working Group https://niso.org/standards-committees/cclip/scope
- 26. From draft recommendation: “Ata very high level, the first step in understanding the potential for collaborative collections activities in this particular model of optional or opt-in collaborations, sits at the intersection of an awareness of the possible collections landscape (i.e., what is possible to collect), and an awareness of the goals, commitments, intentions, and holdings of others in the same ecosystem. At present building such an awareness is a highly manual process among most optional or opt-in collaborations, and especially among those lacking in shared technical infrastructure and systems. Even in the most highly integrated collaborations with shared technical infrastructures and systems, achieving such awareness levels is difficult, arduous and often costly due to the many disparate sources of information, lack of interchangeable data, and lack of standards.“
- 27.
- 28. From draft recommendation: “Applicationsthat provide services: Middleware applications typically encapsulate functionalities or capabilities that other applications or components can utilize. These services could include defining and modifying profiles to filter titles, sharing profiles with other institutions, and generating lists of titles based on profiles. The prototype under development explores the functional requirements necessary to support awareness for selection and collection development.” “Publishers and libraries should resist the temptation to create new types of identifiers and subject taxonomies and focus instead on crosswalks and interoperability of what exists.”
- 29. Organizational Strategy &Governance Working Group https://niso.org/standards-committees/cclip/scope
- 30. From draft recommendation: ●Positive, forward-thinking outlook by collaborators. Institutions need to view participation as a benefit, not as a fallback. ● Mutual benefits should be clear. It’s important that CCLP’s adoption emphasizes the positive benefits of participation (e.g. allows organizations to focus on their specific differentiators: saves money and time, ability to leverage others' expertise, and reduces startup costs for new programs). ● Innovation leads to unseen future benefits. CCLP should be recognized as ‘innovation’ - advanced and visionary - leading to future advances that can’t be understood or quantified today. ● CCLP will be an additive power. Partnerships won’t detract from an institution's ability to describe their individual value.
- 31.
- 32. Assessment/Data Analysis WorkingGroup https://niso.org/standards-committees/cclip/scope
- 33.
- 34.
- 35. UX Design andPrototype Development Technical Project Lead Team Sebastian Hammer, Index Data Filip Jakobson, UX Design Lead Boaz Nadav Manes, Lehigh University (Co-PI) Carolyn Morris, Ingram More to be appointed after initial UX work is completed
- 36. Where we startedfrom Data Middleware Applications + features Stakeholders + Needs
- 37.
- 45. Work Plan forCCLP Phase 3 ● Build a functional roadmap of key components of the needed infrastructure ● Model a community-based implementation structure ● Develop prototype middleware tools where those tools do not exist ● Promote adoption and understanding Phase 1 IMLS Grant submitted in March 2022, Awarded in August New work item approved to launch CCLIP work in NISO Phase 2 ● Development of a community governance structure ● Assessing and documenting the landscape and classifying existing standards ● Develop model workflows, model user experience & identify where systems improvements are needed to be made Completed Completed
- 46. Next Steps ● ConsortiaWorking Group - Call for Participation Out NOW! ● Publishers & Suppliers Working Group - coming Fall ‘24 ● Seeking subsequent funding opportunities - Prospectus to IMLS and others for implementation funding in September ‘24 (for funding in ‘25) ● Coordination and development the technical pilot - Summer ’24-Spring ‘25 ● Next Quarterly Update: Ithaka S+R Research Outputs Report discussion (date TBD) ● Public Project Update. Online, Charleston (if accepted), CNI (if accepted)
- 47. QUESTIONS? We welcome anyquestions or comments you may have.
- 48. THANK YOU! Co-PI Team ToddCarpenter — Boaz Nadav Manes — Jill Morris NISO Staff Support Keondra Bailey — Nettie Lagace Collaborative Collections Lifecycle Project website This project is generously supported, in part, by a National Leadership Grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services. (Grant ID: LG-252384-OLS-22)