NASIG Newsletter

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Betting a Strong Hand in the Game of Electronic Resource Management
Paoshan Yue, Electronic Access Librarian, University of Nevada, Reno Libraries; Elizabeth S. Burnette, Acquisitions Department, North Carolina State University Libraries
Reported by Mavis B. Molto

This session addressed how to create an e-resource management model to meet the needs of users while using library resources effectively.  Paoshan Yue began the session by identifying the goal of the electronic resource management, ERM, game:  to “manage electronic resources in such a way that the users will get the utmost benefits from the e-resource products and services.”  She identified three components of electronic resource management:  staffing, tools, and workflows.  People choose tools and design workflows; tools stimulate skill upgrades in people and workflow changes; and workflows incorporate people and tools. 

At the University of Nevada, Reno Libraries, getting accurate e-journal links and holdings information into the databases quickly and consistently is the top priority.  ER lifecycle management is accomplished using the Innovative Millenium ERM; with ER access management provided by the Millennium Web OPAC, Microsoft Access Web Lists, and SFX Knowledgebase Find it software.  A detailed flow chart of the University of Nevada, Reno Library’s e-serials workflow is available at http://www2.library.unr.edu/serials/ERMworkflow.pdf.

Some suggestions for workflow design in ER access management include:  1) Aim to process data only once and repurpose them for different data stores, 2) Utilize existing tools fully and creatively and add new tools or replace old with new, 3) Leverage the strengths of your staff and tools and encourage skill upgrades in staff, and 4) Keep library end users in mind.

Elizabeth Burnette followed with a presentation that focused on the electronic resource workflow.  Periodic analysis is needed to maintain efficiency, due to changes in serials’ formats and product packaging along with new and improved tools to manage serials.  Areas that should be considered are staffing and workflow, especially bottlenecks and backlogs, workflow design, and improving efficiency.

For successful workflows, one should consider department objectives and library goals, and analyze both print and e-resource workflows so as to illuminate the differences between the two.  An objective of the workflow review is to hunt for inefficiencies to allow more resources for acquiring e-resources.  All processes in the serials workflow should be reviewed: selection, order, payment, access, and storage.  The major steps in both the print and the e-resource workflow analysis include:  1) Review existing documentation and policies, 2) Identify steps that have become obsolete, 3) Create and test a revised provisional workflow, 4) Implement the revised workflow, and 5) Establish a process to receive routine feedback.

Suggestions for optimizing efficiency include maximizing staff and integrating workflows.  If one decides to integrate print and e-resources processes, as is done at North Carolina State University Libraries, the following steps are suggested:  1) Identify processes being integrated, the process expert, the cohort being trained, and in what order, 2) Identify the tools used and development needed, 3) Consider current work volume and time needed to integrate, and 4) Communicate.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Serials as a Public Service: We’re One Happy Family
Jennifer Duncan, Electronic Resources Librarian, Utah State University; Sylvia McAphee, Serials Librarian, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama-Birmingham
Reported by Beverly Geckle

Jennifer Duncan and Sylvia McAphee discussed their experiences working across departments, in both technical services and public services. Jennifer Duncan has had several electronic resources librarian positions, sometimes reporting to the head of reference and sometimes reporting to the head of technical services.  Some of her positions involved working several hours on the reference desk. Currently she works about six hours on the desk. Jennifer encouraged service on the reference desk because it provides feedback. She gave the example that testing a product utilizing trials is not the same as having to use the product with a real patron in real time.

Jennifer also discussed reference staff involved in technical services work.  She was able to cross-train a reference librarian in the service aspects of her duties, such as troubleshooting problems.  Jennifer also believes in providing direct tech support.  Reference can call her immediately instead of trying to resolve the problem on their own.  She will often go to the desk or use chat or IM.  Jennifer has her direct line on the webpage so patrons can contact her immediately. She is even on call using her cell phone. Duncan encouraged technical services staff to participate in library instruction. It provides an opportunity to give additional information or clarification to the instruction librarians.  She also provides handouts for distance education students so there is a face linked to the contact information.

Duncan has established a webpage with information for the reference staff which includes an FAQ section and she contributes to two library blogs. The first blog is for library staff. Instead of forwarding emails with vendor or provider information of interest to staff she posts this information on a blog. It also serves as an archive and a place for trials information and feedback.  In addition, training opportunities can be posted there. There is also a public blog, LiBlog USU, which is a collaboration between herself, the head of collection development and another reference librarian. Jennifer ended by saying that it is important that technical services be marketed and that public services and technical services work together. She thinks in the future there may not be such a dichotomy between the two departments.

Sylvia McAphee has had several years of library experience as a student assistant and a paraprofessional. She discussed the technical services versus public services divide that occurs in many libraries. She stressed that each are the others’ patrons.  Sylvia described her personal journey of expanding her work experience to include both technical services and reference.

While in library school McAphee volunteered at the reference desk. Even after her training sessions it took time for her to feel comfortable on her own, without other reference staff around.  Now she is comfortable on her own and enjoys it. Sylvia and her department head attend reference meetings and she is also a co-library liaison and has manned the library booth at orientation.  The work in public services has made her see a different side to herself and she feels more well rounded. Through this experience Sylvia has developed leadership skills and an appreciation for teamwork.

After the presentations there was an open discussion with the audience. Much of the discussion was about the conflict or divide between technical services and public services and how to change the situation. Cross training and better communication were stressed.  It seems that technical services staff are more willing to work in reference than vice versa. There was a discussion on why this might be. It was suggested that reference staff may have the perception that work in technical services is very rule oriented and are unaware of its flexible aspects.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Successive Entry, Latest Entry, or None of the Above?
How the MARC 21 Format, the Concept of a Work and FRBR Revitalize Serials Management
Katherine Adams and Britta Santamauro, both from Yale University
Reported by Sarah Gardner

Katherine Adams and Britta Santamauro from Yale University presented a theoretical model for managing serials cataloging and display using FRBR, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, concepts and the MARC 21 format. They began the session examining the “cataloger’s dilemma” of how to create the best record structure for something as fluid as a serial. They proposed FRBR-izing the “front-end” (interface, often the library’s website) and the “back-end” (catalog/database design) of the catalog. The presenters hold the assumption that patrons still browse library catalogs, and there is value in exposing the full run of a serial, even if it is difficult to display.

The speakers explained the basics of FRBR: a “work” is a concept or an idea, an “expression” is the version (translation, edition) of a work, a “manifestation” is the publication/format of an expression, and an “item” is the physical item of the manifestation.  For their example, they selected the Atlantic Monthly, a problematic title with several title changes and different physical formats available.

The record was broken into three different record levels: a “superworkspression” as the umbrella record, manifestation records for each specific format, and item records to show local holdings for each format. In this model, the superworkspression links different media together and identifies family trees and relationships.  Editions with substantially different content would get their own superworkspression record. The superworkspression and manifestation records would be maintained nationally through cooperative cataloging on OCLC; only the item records would need to be maintained locally. The presenters theorized that this model would solve about 80% of cataloging problems.

Most MARC fields and authority data would be captured at the superworkspression level, including all title changes and subject work. The benefit would be that staff would only have to catalog a title once. At the manifestation level, most MARC fields would be limited to numerical identifiers such as ISSN and OCLC numbers, and notes on the physical format. The benefit is  brevity, since these records would inherit attributes from the level above. The item record would contain data in MARC Holdings format for location and coverage. The benefit is that they would be easier to maintain.

The overall thrust of this model is to make access and identification more important than description. This model ties into larger trends that are redefining cataloging ideas, in which stability is not as important.  The emphasis is less about absolute mastery, but rather working with what you have, namely, “bricolage.”  This model, while not perfect, builds on existing strengths in the FRBR model and the MARC format. The presenters theorized that the result would mean more intensive, sophisticated cataloging of fewer records, as title changes would be collapsed onto one umbrella record.

ERRATUM 

The conference report on the Tactics Session called “The Shape of Things to Come: Resource Description and Access (RDA)” published in the September issue of the Newsletter contained an error.  The session was presented by Ed Jones and reported by Mavis Molto. 

The first item in the list of RDA’s new features should have been “No ISBD punctuation in the examples” instead of “ISBD punctuation in the examples.”  The posting in the newsblog has been corrected. 

The Newsletter Editorial Board regrets the error.

TACTICS SESSION

Today’s Journal Cost: Print vs. Online

Richard Fidczuk, Production Director, Sage Publications Ltd.; and Linda Beebe, Senior Director, PsycINFO, American Psychological Association
Reported by Virginia A. Rumph 

Richard Fidczuk has twenty years experience in the production of both books and periodicals.  He has seen the shift from print-only to the volatile environment of today.  Fidczuk began by listing three costs of journal production: costs that don’t depend on format, costs for print only, and costs for online only.  Costs can also be divided into fixed costs, and variable costs.  The fixed costs incurred regardless of delivery mechanism include pre-acceptance costs, and post-acceptance costs.  

Fidczuk next examined printing costs.  Sage still prints all its journals and anticipates continuing that policy for some time.  The make-ready costs are high, but decrease as more copies are printed.  As print runs decrease, manufacturing costs increase.  Very low print runs would allow for digital printing which has a stable cost, but that cost is higher than litho printing.  Distribution costs continue to rise as mailing costs increase.  The set-up cost to print the first copy is fixed, but after that the printing costs are variable.  Consequently, so long as any copies are printed, costs remain.  Online-only costs were then examined.  These include coding, hosting, website and feature development costs, archiving costs, and more.  For those publishers with a large title list, these fees mount up to a substantial sum of money.   

Linda Beebe shared her perspective on what is happening to journal costs.  The scholarly community expected electronic publishing would be cheaper since printing and postage would be eliminated.  However, the reality is that electronic publishing costs more than anyone dreamed it would.  Beebe presented a series of charts with a cost breakdown for a hypothetical journal in print only, print + electronic, and electronic only.  The print-only costs $104 per article, print + electronic $185, and electronic-only $166. 

Beebe listed many extras that are expected with electronic publishing such as pre-print servers, linking, TOC alerts, personalization, legacy data, and supplemental material.  There are also development and infrastructure costs.  So far, some items it was hoped would save money have not worked out.  Unfortunately, the many benefits of electronic publishing have not produced dollar savings.  The bottom line is that electronic publishing is more expensive than print and will stay that way for the foreseeable future.  However, the tools are getting better, which may eventually lower costs, and technology does get cheaper. 

From the library point of view, there was also hope that cost savings would be realized with the elimination of check-in, shelving, binding, and storage.  However, the acquisitions process is more costly, collection development is more complicated, more skilled staff are required, and more training is needed.  New issues and equipment must also be considered. Beebe did find some good news for us to ponder.  Journals now reach more people, are used more often and longer, and the cost per user and per use will go down for both publisher and librarian.  Also, electronic publishing improves science.  To continue along the path of electronic publishing is our only option.  Authors, readers, and librarians demand nothing less.

TACTICS SESSION

Climbing the Mountain: Choosing the Best Path for Serials Record Management

Jennifer Edwards, Serials Cataloger Librarian, MIT Libraries; and Betsy Friesen, University of Minnesota
Reported by Peter Fletcher

Jennifer Edwards’ individual presentation title was: “Piggybacking En Masse.” At MIT, Edwards stated that the single record approach of cataloging electronic resources has been used since 1998. Furthermore she reported, as in most libraries, there is an increasing number of e-resources and less staff time to devote to the required, frequent maintenance of the cataloging records.

In order to improve timely access to and maintenance of e-resources, a method that would partly automate the maintenance of the records and add a significant number of online titles to the catalog was devised. Specifically, the method involves using the MARCit service to batch load records for electronic resources from specific packages held by MIT. The records would match on OCLC number, ISSN, and ISN.  Records for which print titles are held would import only 856 fields and holdings. Records not matching would be loaded as separate records. Successful test loads were then accomplished. MARCit will send regular bibliographic and URL updates. 

In addition, Edwards indicated that holdings are maintained by SFX at MIT, and the catalog will be implemented as an SFX source.  Benefits to be derived from these developments are that thousands of records for presently un-cataloged serials from aggregator databases will be added to the catalog, titles added to existing packages will be added to the catalog without manual intervention, and manual maintenance of URLs will be reduced. In conclusion, Edwards noted that while some tight control of the catalog will be lost, the catalog will become a more comprehensive record of MIT holdings, and the catalog, as an SFX source, will offer more comprehensive access to electronic resources.  

Betsy Friesen’s presentation, “Using Separate Records for Print and Electronic Titles,” followed. A separate record approach is being implemented at theUniversity of Minnesota Libraries as the most efficient and timely way of indicating changes and additions to electronic resources in the catalog.  The decision was made to switch from a cataloging policy of single record approach for electronic resources after evaluating the advantages and disadvantages. Friesen and her team came to the conclusion that the advantages: allowing automated/batch loading; including a complete description of e-resources; facilitating compiling statistics; standardizing cataloging practices; and easier catalog maintenance outweighed the disadvantages: preference of some users for a single record approach; potential cataloger workload increase; and vendor record costs. Thus, the policy change would be implemented, which would include splitting and de-duping records as necessary, while creating new electronic version records. 

Furthermore she reported that vendor provided records that were “fixed” via scripts at load to credibly represent online resources.  After the load, record clean-up commenced.  Serial records in need of review were identified and added to a spreadsheet, which catalogers worked with in order to remove online access elements from single record approach titles: bibliographic, holdings, item, open orders, and so on. Friesen concluded by noting that problematic titles were set aside for serials catalogers to resolve, the systems office deleted duplicate records, and the catalog would be implemented as an SFX source.

TACTICS SESSION

Open Access and Conscious Selection

Kitti Canepi,  Head of Information Resources Management; and Andrea Imre, Electronic Resources Librarian; both from Southern Illinois University Carbondale; and Harold Way, Account Services Manager, EBSCO
Reported by Wendy C. Robertson 

Kitti Canepi, Andrea Imre, and Harold Way believe open access is an experiment and it has yet to be determined if it will be sustainable in the long run. They began by explaining open access (OA) and referred the audience to the website http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml for a complete explanation.   

There are two ways to achieve open access: self archiving and publishing in OA journals. Self-archiving is the author’s responsibility, using an institutional repository, a personal web site or an institutional website.  Open access journals can include titles with all content freely available, for example, DOAJ; partial OA content, for example, BMJ and BioMedCentral; or delayed OA, for example, many Highwire titles. 

Open access benefits authors through a wider dissemination of their work, giving it a greater impact, and through faster publication.  Readers benefit from barrier free access.  For libraries, OA solves, or at least eases, the “pricing and permission crisis” (defined by Peter Suber in a 2003 C&RL article). 

Way gave some specific data based on EBSCO subscription services and databases because of his familiarity with these products, but believes they represent the industry as a whole.  He indicated that while only 10% of all the titles available to purchase through EBSCO are electronic, scholarly publishing is 40% electronic titles. 

Database providers need to consider content, not specific journals.  They try to create a database appropriate for the market and this may include OA titles. However, providers then ask for permission to include the OA titles and some OA titles are not clear about whom to contact so this can take some time. Including OA titles in databases has the advantage of further distribution of the content but the disadvantage that libraries may be paying for free content.  

Libraries have been including OA titles in journal lists, adding to the OPAC, A-Z database lists and subject pathfinders, essentially treating them like other titles. However, OA titles can be difficult to find if you don’t have a link resolver with a collection of free titles. Despite the costs of maintaining links, the presenters believe that libraries should make OA titles available because libraries support the open access publishing model.  Libraries want users to come to them and authors want their articles widely available. Librarians can provide value added service by making users aware of journals, mediating between users and materials and monitoring the quality of journals. This requires diligently selecting journals before directing people to them.  

The presenters also referred to a recent C&RL article for additional information. Furthermore, they suggested a variety of selection criteria for OA journals: content, publisher/reputation, availability of indexing, format and accessibility, longevity and currency, license restrictions, and considerations due to your consortia.  

OA titles, like gift books, have a cost because they require all the regular maintenance of a serials title and an electronic resource. The presenters encouraged librarians to take the time needed to select OA titles and to add them to their collections to help make people aware of them. 

The presentation concluded with a discussion with the audience about how librarians should treat OA titles.

TACTICS SESSION

Generating E-Collections Lists for Dummies: Creating a Better Electronic Reference Collection

Char Simser, Head of Cataloging and Serials Department; Mohan Ramaswamy, Science Librarian; and Tara Baillargeon, Social Sciences Librarian, all from Kansas State University
Reported by Kathryn Johns-Masten 

This interesting presentation was given by Char Simser, Head of Cataloging and Serials, Mohan Ramaswamy, Science Librarian, and Tara Baillargeon, Social Sciences Librarian, all from Kansas State University. 

Providing access to electronic reference collections is an important issue for libraries.  Like many libraries, Kansas State had new resources such as netLibrary, Gale reference materials and the ABC-CLIO database, which were listed individually in their OPAC, and subject guides with links to databases on their homepage.  Users were not finding these hidden gems and the public reference librarians wanted to streamline and simplify the process of retrieval for users. 

Char Simser heard a talk given at a NASIG Annual Conference by Steve Shadle from the University of Washington which sparked an idea.  They had used codes and canned searches to dynamically generate lists of materials on the fly, thereby getting users to sources they usually did not find.  Why not do the same thing at Kansas State? 

A team was formed, including subject librarians, reference generalists, a Web team member and the collection development librarian.  The goal was to link free and fee resources together to increase their visibility and get users to these hidden resources.  The CatNet page was the end result with four sections: eReference tools, Quick eReference, K-State eReference and Subject Guides.  Canned searches in Voyager provided access to e-reference books and could be searched by titles, type or subject.  Creating this “electronic reference collection” would take a great deal of time and cooperation between multiple departments in the library.  The decision about what resources to include and exclude went well.  The next step was to create the code.  While this sounds easy, it took quite a lot of checking to find a code that was not already being used and to choose subject headings and department codes.  The MARC 710 field was used for type of material and subject codes and the 730 for department codes and format of the material.  By including this code it not only enabled users to locate information quickly, it created easier maintenance of e-journal packages, group subscriptions and memberships, and lists of current subscriptions by department.  Completion of a serials cancellation project and the ability to do canned searches also benefited from the new codes.  Lists could easily be pulled from the OPAC using the code in each record and the canned searches provided users with the most up-to-date information in a format they understood. 

In conclusion, the group stated that the project is a growing organism.  Decisions need to be made about continuing maintenance, selection and evaluation of the page.  A new system will be implemented to obtain usage statistics.  Next steps involve more publicity of CatNet, a more prominent placement on the homepage and continued evaluation to meet the needs of users.  To view the CatNet page go to: http://www.lib.ksu.edu/reference/index.html.

TACTICS SESSION

Mile High to Ground Level:  Getting Projects Organized and Complete

Jennifer Marill, Office of Strategic Initiatives, Library of Congress
Reported by Rosella Thomas 

This presentation by Jennifer L. Marill, from the Office of Strategic Initiatives at the Library of Congress, focused on the process of organizing and completing a project through good project management techniques. By illustrating those established project management techniques, this session showed the multiple steps in the process of organizing and completing a project from beginning to end: how to initiate, plan, execute, monitor, complete and close the project out. 

A good project manager must be a mentor, taskmaster, cheerleader and disciplinarian to have the project done well.  Defining a project requires careful planning and a clearly identified and documented objective, together with enough training and support by the project members who provide their individualized expertise and creative energy to work collaboratively toward the finished goal. 

Using project management methods and resources such as Gantt charts, responsibility assignment matrixes (RAM), and the PMBOK® Guide, and drawing on resources from the Project Management Institute, the outcome from this session was a carefully planned series of steps to execute a project, including:  

• Planning a project and putting a team together
• Project requirements
• Work breakdown structure (WBS)
• Budget and scheduling
• Risk planning
• Executing and monitoring
• Keeping people informed and managing change
• Why projects fail
• Proper closeout of a project

Although she stated at the beginning of her presentation that her projects were not necessarily serials-related, good practical advice was offered and the audience garnered a better understanding of how to organize and execute projects they may have to initiate for their respective libraries.

TACTICS SESSION

Tackling the Reorganization Chart

Ramona Metcalf, Electronic Acquisitions Librarian; and Serenity King, Reserves Coordinator, both from University of Texas at Dallas
Reported by Xan Arch  

Ramona Metcalf and Serenity King described the reorganization recently undertaken by the technical services Units of the University of Texas at Dallas. Going through the process step by step, they detailed ways in which the reorganization succeeded and aspects that could have been done better. 

The UTD library had Acquisitions and Cataloging Departments separated by a physical wall and suffering from a lack of clear communication. The reorganization removed this wall and merged these two departments into a single more efficient Technical Services Department.  

The first step in this process was telling the two departments about the change. The presenters suggested that this be done on the same day, so as to eliminate rumors and confusion. The next steps concentrated on streamlining practices. First, staff members explained their job duties to the group.  A consideration at this stage should be who performs each task, not just what tasks are performed.  After the move, staff will benefit from knowing who of their co-workers can be resources for which type of questions. Next, staff ranked the job duties according to importance, and the list was compared to the reference staff’s list of importance. This helped the units gain perspective on how much time and staffing should be allotted to each task. 

The next set of steps focused on the physical moving process. Staff members were asked to develop a desired floor plan for the new merged department. The presenters stressed that this brainstorming should be understood as a wish list, rather than a final blueprint, since some ideas may not be feasible. Next the departments worked on morale-boosting. Staff members were encouraged to graffiti the dividing wall while music played. Finally the demolition took place. At this stage, the presenters suggested managers watch for the health of the employees, because the demolition process can involve dust, debris, and loud noises.  

After the reorganization, the final step was to ask the library staff for feedback. A suggestion at this point is to offer the option for anonymous feedback, to encourage honesty. Some of the negative feedback came from the reference staff, who mentioned that they had a hard time finding out peoples’ new locations and duties. The presenters suggested that managers communicate effectively with other parts of the library while going through this type of change. The major successes of the reorganization were more streamlined practices, more efficient service, and the staff’s feeling that they had been included in the whole process.  

Overall, the presenters suggested that any department contemplating reorganization understand their staff and their environment, stay flexible, be prepared for complications throughout the process, and take time to listen to the needs of the people involved.