Completed Task Forces/Teams
Assessment Task Force
Audio Visual Rescue Center Program Planning Group
Bibliographic Records Task Force
Civil Rights Task Force
Code of Conduct
CONTENT dm Interface Task Force
CMS Implementation Team
CMS RFP Task Force
CMS Task Force
Creation of a Collection Development Policy for Commonwealth College Libraries
Data Warehouse Development and Implementation
Delivery of Books to Faculty Offices
E-Journals
Electronic Reference Packages
Electronic Resources Advisory Committee (ERAC)
Electronic Resources Review
Ex Libris Implementation Committee
Format Duplication I
Format Duplication II
Group Study Task Force
Intranet Task Force
Legal Loose-Leaf Services
Linking Task Force
Metadata Expert Team
MetaLib Group
Promotion & Tenure Recognition
Promotion &Tenure Task Force
Reftracker Implementation
Reftracker Technical/Access Services
Research Purchases (2002-03)
Resource Sharing Team
Scholarly Communication Package
Selector's "in-box"
Selector's Manual & Toolbox Review
Self-Checkout Task Force
Serials Claiming
Services Transition Team
Signage Policy Committee
Signage Steering
Visual Design Task Force
Visual Media Investigation Group
Web Swat Team
WoW (Working on the Web Task Force)
Appointed by: Laurie Probst
Chairs: Laurie Probst and Eric Novotny
Membership: Nan Butkovich, Will Covington, Kevin Harwell, Nancy Henry, Sue Houser, Bill Joyce, Henry Pisciotta, Ashley Robinson, Linda Struble.
Advisory Members: Chris Avery, Linda Klimczyk, Loanne Snavely
Charge: Initiate an ongoing assessment program at the University Park Libraries.
Deadline/duration: July 1, 2003
Report: Not available
Audio Visual Rescue Center Program Planning Group
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan and Sally Kalin
Chair: Sue Kellerman
Membership: Bill Bishop and Jackie Esposito
Charge: This group is charged with investigating
services, physical space requirements, equipment and
staffing needed to establish a Rescue Center for the
University Libraries' AV collection. Specifically the
planning group should consider: services, space, and
opportunities to partner.
Deadline/duration: Inactive/New activity
will be re-charged and re-focused. (Per Furlough May
2007)
Report: Not available
Bibliographic Records Task Force
Appointed by: Rosann Bazirjian
Chair: John Attig
Membership: Jeff Edmunds, Carolyn Hertzog, Janet Hughes, Lori Leatherman, Sylvia MacKinnon, Helen Sheehy
Charge:
- Develop guidelines that the Libraries can follow based on format and source.
- Weigh the pros and cons of each of these approaches from both the technical and public service perspectives.
- Review the recommendations from the LC “Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium”. Pay special attention to guidelines in item 3.5 (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/elec_res.html)
- Benchmark with peer institutions. The Minutes of the January 12, 2001 meeting of the ALCTS Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group should also be examined.
- Meet with the Loading of Bibliographic Records Group for background and an update on the issues from their perspective.
- Consider the effect that Open URL and the recommendations of the Linking Task Force will have on this issue.
- Make a recommendation to Rosann Bazirjian by May 1, 2003.
Deadline/duration: May 1, 2003
Report: Bibliographic
Records Task Force Report
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Bill Joyce
Membership: Jin Ma, Karen Schwentner, Larry Wentzel
Charge: To create a digital project of
the Civil Rights materials in Special Collections.
Deadline/duration:
Report: Not available
Appointed by: Sally Kalin
Chair: Sue Kellerman
Membership:
Charge:
Deadline/duration:
Report: Approved Code of Conduct, 5/02
Content dm Interface Task Force
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Henry Pisciotta
Membership: Bill Joyce, Jin Ma
Charge:
This task force will propose a name and an interface structure for our CONTENT dm applications as we transition from the VIUS project to our scholarly communication program. The interface structure might best be expressed as an outline for a series of web pages.
Identify who needs to receive and further discuss the report to facilitate implementation.
In your work please:
1. Limit your focus to Penn State
2. Consult all digital collections mounted using CONTENT dm
3. Consider other planned and anticipated digitization projects
4. Consult widely within the Libraries and consider our partners including DLT, the Palmer Museum of Art and the Penn State Press, and the Department of Art History.
Deadline/duration: May 27, 2003
Report: CONTENT dm Final Report
Appointed by: NA
Chair:
Membership: Andrew Calvin, Binky Lush, Janis Mathewson
Charge: To provide day-to-day management, decision making, assessment, maintenance, and leadership for the libraries Web presence.
Deadline/duration: Completed per German April 2007
Report:
CMS (Content Management System) RFP Task Force
Appointed by: Future of the Web Group
Chair: Brian Hoffman
Membership: Ann Copeland, Meg Harpster (Purchasing), Bonnie Imler, Mark Saussure, Helen Smith, Katherine Strenko, Nancy Struble
Charge:
- To write and distribute a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Web content management system (CMS), review the responses, and recommend a product.
Deadline/duration: July 2005
Report: Final Report of CMS RFP Task Force
CMS (Content Management System) Task Force
Appointed by: Future of the Web Group
Chair: Brian Hoffman
Membership: Lois Green, Bonnie Imler, Helen Smith, Lee Stout, Katherine Strenko, Nancy Struble, Lance Wilkinson
Charge: The group was charged by the User-Focused Web Steering Committee to do the following:
- Complete the Feature Requirements specifications for a Content Management System (CMS)
- Narrow down the list of products to be evaluated based on these requirements (Initial Product List to be provided)
- Determine if a format RFP process is warranted
- Create the groundwork for an RFP or an RFP-like document
- Conduct the RFP process, if warranted
- Recommend a course of action
Deadline/duration: February 2005
Report: Final Report of CMS Task Force
Creation of a Collection Development Policy for Commonwealth College Libraries
Appointed by:Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: David Van de Streek
Membership: Jennifer Gilley, Kay Harvey, Jeff Ungar, Paul Arrigo
Charge: Create a collection development policy for the Commonwealth College Library collections. This will provide guidance to the Commonwealth College Libraries as they purchase new materials, add gifts, and weed the collections. The policy should be flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of instructional goals of each campus however for the long-term strength of the collections there should be uniformity and a well-understood unity of purpose. In addition, this statement will help guide the work and assist in the training and orientation of new librarians and help the Libraries' selectors outside the CCL to understand the collection goals of the CCL Libraries.
1. Use the standard format found in the Selector’s Manual
2. Consult with your colleagues and benchmark as appropriate
3. Consider timeliness of material to be added. You may want to consider a cutoff of ten years for materials purchased or added as gifts.
4. Consider the purpose of the collections as they relate to the programs at the various locations.
5. Consider the relationship between the collections under consideration and the collections at the locations not considered by this statement especially with regard to the research collections.
6. Consider electronic resources and format duplication
7. Consider both gift materials and purchased resources.
8. Consider materials such as textbooks
9. Consider materials in all formats including books, journals, audio visual resources, etc.
10. Consider and create procedures for collections review and weeding.
11. Consider the real cost of adding resources. A gift is far from free by the time we process it.
12. Recommend a decision to make Capco binding a default option for all binding. This will not effect locations that do not currently bind paperbacks, in fact you may consider recommending we expand the number of locations or categories of materials we do not currently bind.
Deadline/duration: April 1, 2003 and for discussion at the Collections Retreat 2003
Report: Commonwealth College Libraries Collection Development Policy
Data Warehouse Development and Implementation
Phase 1: Unicorn Data Focus Group
Appointed by: Rosann
Bazirjian & Linda Friend
Chairs: Ray Hankinson
and Betty Nirnberger
Membership:
Betty Nirnberger, Campus Libraries
Cheri Banks, Binding/Preservation
Heather Benner, Serials
Michelle Dzyak, Special Collections
Joyce Harwell, Interlibrary Loan
Judy Hewes, Cataloging
Chris Holobar, Reserves
Heather Ross, Acquisitions
Kathy Porteous, Business/Finance Office, Mediatech
Ann Snowman, Access Services (Lending Services, Annex, etc.)
Carol Wright, Collections, Reference needs
Steve Dahm - Web site development
Karen Stitzer – staff support (minutes)
Linda Friend and Rosann Bazirjian are liaisons to IT Priorities
for the data warehouse development process in the Libraries. Lynn Garrison
and Kim Patishnock are consultants to this phase. Other DLT members will
be contacted for consultation and support as needed
Charge:
Group members will act as liaisons to assigned areas to identify stakeholder
data needs through contacts such as interviews and email, gathering information
in order to determine the most critical report needs for the assigned area
so that these will be developed as first priority. The group will benchmark
with other locations having data warehouse projects. They will provide various
means of communicating data warehouse development progress to Libraries personnel.
Members will test (and/or identify others to test) the customized data interfaces
being developed and conceptualize and provide a training initiative for Phase
1 products for all Libraries personnel who will potentially use the warehouse.
• Regular meetings and other communication will take place and there will
be a retreat.
• Data needs mapped to Unicorn statistics/reports have been identified
through the previous Reports group, chaired by Kim Patishnock and Lynn Garrison,
and this focus group will ensure that, where possible, those needs are met.
• Recommendations from the Focus Group will be referred from the chairs
to IT Priorities for comment and action. The group will report to IT Priorities
through Linda Friend and Rosann Bazirjian.
Deadline/duration: Late spring until Fall 2006. The group
will recommend outcomes and next phases of development.
Report: Director's Station resolved these questions. (Per B. Nirnberger, April 2007)
Delivery of Books to Faculty Offices
Appointed by: Rosann Bazirjian and Bonnie MacEwan
Chair:Laurie Probst
Membership: Rebecca Bichel, Nan Butkovich, Tun Chin, Nadine Deitrich, Joyce Harwell, Sue Kellerman, Tim Wherry, Diane Zabel
Charge:
1.Determine categories of materials (books, photocopies, other formats) that can be delivered directly to faculty, graduate assistant or staff offices.
2. Determine the cost effectiveness of delivering directly to offices.
3. Determine the proper mechanism for delivery.
4. Determine if a fee structure associate with this service is feasible.
5. Determine staffing implications for this service, i.e. who will provide this service, where does it fit into the organization.
6. Determine the technological needs. (i.e. system requirements, gateway, etc)
7. Consider SIRSI issues. (i.e. How will "charging out" occur)
8. Be certain to include benchmarking with other peer institutions with making your final recommendation. (i.e. University of Virginia, University of Minnesota)
9. Be certain to address needs for courier service to the West campus and Research Park.
Deadline/duration: Original deadline was February 28, 2002.
Report: Not available
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Tom Conkling
Membership: Becky Albitz, Heather Benner,Amy Paster, Carol Wright, Courtney Young
Charge:
1. Identify the packages to be considered. The group must consider Wiley, Elsevier, Academic Ideal (now part of Elsevier), and Muse but may want to consider others.
2. Establish review criteria.
3. Work closely with all appropriate subject specialists, campus librarians and librarians at Hershey.
4. Contact the vendors and review the literature regarding costs, benefits, and scholarly communications system issues.
5. Consider all of the users and gather information about use and user perceptions.
Deadline/duration: To some extent this will be determined by the renewal dates but in any case the report should be completed by June for discussion at the 2003 Collection Development retreat .
Report: E-Journals Task Force Final Report
Further information available at the TFEJ web site.
Appointed by: Becky Albitz and Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Eric Novotny
Membership: Paula Contreras, Susan Ware, Courtney Young, Ashley Robinson and Bonnie Osif
Charge:
- Identify Electronic Reference Packages and/or individual titles available to the academic market.
- Evaluate products, comparing content, usability, cost, access limits, etc.
- Recommend an appropriate solution to support unmediated reference needs, as well as in-person and on-line reference.
Deadline/duration: Report by the end of 2004
Report: E-References Packages task force report
Electronic Resources Advisory Committee
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Becky Albitz
Membership: Bill Brockman, Ashley Robinson, Anna Pilston, Helen Smith, Courtney Young
Charge: The Electronic Resources Advisory Committee provides the Assistant Dean for Collections and the Electronic Resources and Scholarly Communications librarian with guidance on issues relating to electronic resources. Specifically, this committee advises in the selection of new, broad-based electronic resources that would be funded centrally. Also, when needed, this committee would convene to address issues concerning changes in access, price increases and renewals for general interest databases.
Deadline/duration: Term ends 2005
Report: Not applicable
Appointed by: Collection Development Steering Committee
Chair: Becky Albitz
Membership: Nancy Dewald, Jane Ingold, Linda Musser, Henry Pisciotta, Robyn Rosenberg, Helen Sheehy
Charge: In respect to the titles not identified as "core" the Task Force will:
• Determine comparative usage and cost-per-use
data.
• Identify titles that may overlap with similar resources or content.
• Identify those titles that, if cancelled, may not represent a
hardship to the overall health of the collections.
• Develop other criteria that may become apparent as the process
evolves.
• Identify other issues relevant to funding electronic resources
that may need to be addressed by the Libraries, and develop recommendations
for further reviews.
• Consult with the collection Development Steering Committee, Head
of Acquisitions, Assistant Dean for Technical and Collections Services,
and selectors as necessary throughout the process.
• Prepare and submit all evaluative data to the CD Steering Team
by February 15, 2006
Duration/deadline: February 15, 2006
Report: Electronic Resources Review Final Report
Ex Libris Implementation Committee
Chairs: Becky Albitz and Carol Wright
Membership: Joni Barnoff, Susan Hamburger, Brian Hoffman, Bonnie Imler, Jaime Johnson, Jin Ma, Betty Nirnberger, Ashley Robinson, Helen Smith, Nancy Struble, Courtney Young
Charge: Will work in collaboration with the Steering Committee to manage the details of the implementation. They will attend the MetaLib training (January 26-27, 2005). At the end of the term, the Implementation Committee will be asked for recommendations for the continued implementation for the ongoing maintenance of the MetaLib and SFX software.
Deadline/duration: December 2006
Report: Not available
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Carol Wright
Membership: Heather Benner, Nan Butkovich, Richard Fitzsimmons, Kelly Kaiserian, Amanda Maple, Bob Seeds
Charge: The charge to the task force is to evaluate format duplication and make recommendations regarding storage, delivery, access, and costs of duplication across the entire collection regardless of location or format.
The following issues should be addressed as part of the charge:
- Determine the extent and nature of format duplication
- Consider archival issues
- Access needs by format and by content
- Delivery options
- Shelving needs and other costs of maintaining multiple formats
- If materials are to be annexed determine policies and procedures for duplication, delivery, and retention
- Costs and benefits of reducing the amount of duplication among formats and across locations
- Benchmark against other universities and national efforts
Deadline/duration: June 2002 for discussion at the Collections retreat
Report: Format Duplication 2001-02 Final Report
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Carol Wright
Membership: Amanda Maple, Heather Benner, Ann Snowman, David
Van de Streek, Greg Crawford, Helen Smith
Charge: This group will follow up on the work of the first format duplication task force. Revisit the recommendations of the first group in light of any changes in the environment and make some specific recommendations for implementation. Consider the work of the E-journals task force chaired by Tom Conkling, the Linking task force and on-going efforts current underway in the Libraries or in other libraries.
Deadline/duration: Report at the 2004 Collection Development Retreat
Report: Format Duplication II Report
Appointed by: Laurie Probst
Chair:
Membership: Roberta Astroff, Nan Butkovich, Kathy Fescemyer
Charge: To evaluate the need for additional group study spaces in the University Park libraries. As part of the evaluation process you should:
Inventory existing group study spaces and instruction rooms in all University Park libraries.
Collect information from subject libraries, Special Collections, and Reserves about student request for group study space. Two existing proposals from Arts & Humanities and News and Microforms are included with this charge.
Collect information about the usage of instruction rooms including formal class sessions and as independent work space.
Identify existing and planned University spaces to support group study
Make recommendations for creating an informational web page on group study spaces, to include information about use policies, an inventory of library group spaces and other group study spaces on campus.
Deadline/duration: July 1, 2005
Report: Not applicable
Intranet Task Force
Appointed by: Future of the Web Committee (chaired by Jack Sulzer and Sally Kalin)
Chair: Brian Hoffman
Membership: Sandy Ball, Andrew Calvin, Jeff Edmunds, Daniel Mack, Nancy Struble, Susan Walker
Charge: The Intranet Task Force has been charged by the User Focused Web Steering Committee to examine the Libraries' intranet and to recommend new content, new ways to access and organize the content, and ways to improve the overall effectiveness and usability of the site.
Deadline/duration: Report by no later than September 1, 2004.
Report: Intranet Task Force Final Report
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Rebecca Bichel
Membership: Debora Cheney, Carol Wright, Kevin Harwell, Helen Smith, Jaime Jamison
Charge:
1. Identify the legal loose leaf services the University Libraries currently subscribes to.
2. Identify other legal loose-leaf services needed for curriculum and research support that we do not currently provide access to.
3. Identify a core group of legal loose-leaf services needed for curriculum and research support.
4. Explore the availability, costs, and benefits of electronic equivalents for core titles.
5. Prepare a prioritized recommendation that includes an analysis of the costs and benefits of electronic access to these core titles and recommendations for continuing and retaining non-core titles.
Deadline/duration: February 14, 2003
Report: Legal Loose Leaf Services Task Force Draft Report
Appointed by: IT Priorities
Facilitator/Convener: Debora Cheney
Membership: Bob Alan, Becky Albitz, John Attig, Brian Hoffman, Jaime Jamison, Kristi Jensen, Sylvia Mackinnon, John Shank and Helen Smith
Charge:
1. Investigate various products that are on the market that accomplish this type of linking. SFX, ZPortal by Fretwell-Downing, ILink, ELibrary and TDNET, are some products that need to be investigated. What other products are there? The potential of SQL query should also be examined, as well as the potential/needs for internal development. It is recommended that you consider on-site vendor demonstrations. Benchmark the types of linking that are currently being used at other peer institutions.
2. Make recommendations as to what type of linking should be available in LIAS that meets the needs of our users. Ensure that locally developed databases are included as a type of resource in the assessment (TMI, MicroFinder, etc.)
3. Assess the appropriateness of each of these products for the Libraries and our users, and make recommendations concerning product selection and integration with our other platforms.
4. Provide a strategy for implementation, including a timeline and the identification of the resources (staffing, funding, etc.) that will be needed.
The task force should consult broadly with their colleagues and with other working groups investigating access to Libraries' resources, e.g., Angel. A forum might be one way of soliciting information/comments. The task force is urged to look at the feasibility of usability studies.
Deadline/duration: April 15, 2003.
Report: Linking Task Force Final Report
Appointed by: NA
Chair: Jin Ma
Membership: Jeff Edmunds, Brian Hoffman, Jin Ma, Sylvia MacKinnon, Amy Paster, Michael Pelikan
Charge: To establish metadata standards and guidelines for Libraries' content.
Deadline/duration:
Report: Final Report and Recommendations
MetaLib
Software
(Consists of two groups)
Appointed by:
Ex Libris Products Steering Committee
Chairs: Linda Friend and Laurie Probst
Membership: Bob Alan, Becky Albitz, John Attig, Chris Avery, Eric Ferrin, Lynn Garrison, Brian Hoffman, Betty Nirnberger, Carol Wright
Charge: Will provide oversight for the implementation of the MetaLib software and the completion of the second phase of the SFX implementation. They will work with the Ex Libris Implementation Committee.
Deadline/duration:
Report: Not available
Promotion and Tenure Recognition
Appointed by: Robert Secor and Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Bonnie MacEwan
Membership: Bill Brockman, Shirley Davis, Emily Forwood, Catherine Grigor, Bill Joyce, Deena Morganti, Rebecca Mugridge, John Riddle, Nancy Stanley
Charge: Plan a recognition program for faculty who receive promotion and tenure. Bob Secor, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, heard about a similar program at Illinois and suggested to the Provost and Dean Eaton we explore planning such a program at Penn State.
Deadline/duration: Procedures are in place. The program will culminate in November 2003 with a reception honoring this year's recipients and an exhibit featuring bookplates and paragraphs from the faculty.
Report: Program was executed successfully in November 2003 and will be continued annually.
Promotion & Tenure Task Force
Appointed by: Dean Eaton
Chair: Chris Avery
Membership: John Attig, Bill Brockman, Tom Conkling, Greg Crawford, Nancy Dewald, Sally Kalin (ex-officio), Sue Kellerman, Amanda Maple
Charge:
1. Incorporation of the Uniscope Report (high priority)
2. Overall importance of Librarianship as the key criteria
3. Items pertaining to evaluation of accomplishments in the Research cell of the dossier
4.Issues related to service that probably need to be addressed in our criteria
5. Summary evaluation letters
6. Elections for peer review committees
7. Supplementary file--define what is appropriate content
8. Statement of primary assignment-clarify level of detail that is appropriate. Faculty Affairs Committee will have recommendations on this issue as well.
9. Administrative/management responsibilities--how should these be represented in the review process? Confer with Faculty Affairs Committee.
10.Other "customs" or practices or expectations that need to be documented and made part of the record.
Deadline/duration: Summer 2005, for application with the Fall 2005 process
Report: See Libraries Policies & Guidelines, HRG-07 Promotion & Tenure Criteria Guidelines
Appointed by: Chris Avery and Laurie Probst
Chairs: Paula Contreras and Linda Klimczyk
Membership: Tim Arnold, Margy Gerhardt, Russ Hall, Chris Holobar, Lee Stout
Charge:
1. Develop a detailed timetable for the implementation project.
2. System configuration and customization
3. Develop and customize knowledge base
4. Establish assessment criteria and identify priorities for user testing
5. Develop training materials and resources
6. Develop staffing plans and policies
7. Make recommendations for evaluation of pilot project and identify priorities for future development
Deadline/duration: April 3, 2004
Report: Not available
Reftracker Technical/Access Services
Appointed by: Rosann Bazirjian
Chair:
Membership: Chris Holobar, Betty Nirnberger, Heather Ross, Katherine Strenko, Guler Telli
Charge:
This group is investigating the potential of using Reftracker as a staff helpdesk for Technical & Access Services. They will make recommendations regarding the following questions:
1. How many pools do we want (i.e. one for Access Services, one for Technical Services, or combined)?
2. Who will be the “gatekeepers” – monitor the requests?
3. Need to produce a staffing model to support RefTracker
4. Where links to RefTracker should be placed?
5. To which pool should the links go?
6. How do we want to use the knowledge base?
Once these questions are answered, Rosann Bazirjian will work with Laurie Probst toward implementation of this tool for Technical & Access Services.
Deadline/duration: Mid-August 2003
Report: Final Report and Recommendations
Appointed by:Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Bill Brockman
Membership: Rebecca Bichel, Deena Morganti,
Kathy Porteous, Helen Smith, Diane Zabel
Charge:
Your primary assignment is to identify needed materials to purchase with the
pooled funds.
Some considerations:
1. Your goal should be to insure that the budget is fully expended and to identify
needed materials to add to the collection
2. You must complete your work in time to have the orders placed and budget
cleared. Kathy can help you calculate a timeline
3. Next year may be a very difficult year. You may want to identify a portion
of the fund for roll over. I think we will have more flexibility to roll over
funds because there will be less in operations to roll over.
4. Your goal should be to be fair however it is more important that the materials
you select are the most needed
5. The committee usually sets a limit on the amount an item can cost. Acquisitions
can only handle so much work at this late date so to complete your work successfully
you should large ticket items. In the past this has ranged from $500 to $2,000.
6. The campuses did not have a separate research purchases process this year
because of the give back. This will be the only research purchases opportunity
for the campus libraries
7. some of the money may be from the IT fees we receive. If that's the case
that money must be spent on electronic resources. Any other money may be spent
on electronic resources
8. Purchases must be one-time and not serial
9. Several of you have served before and can share experience and materials.
Deadline/duration: For discussion at the Collections retreat
2003
Report: Memo of approved purchases
Appointed by: Nancy Eaton, Sally Kalin, Jack Sulzer, Lisa German
Chair: Barbara Coopey
Membership: Becky Albitz, Barbara Coopey, Esther Dell, Mark Podvia, Ruth Runion Slear
Charge: To study the impact of inter-and intra-library loan, document delivery, consortial relationships, and other sharing efforts and to develop recommendations for optimal services.
Deadline/duration: February 2006 (extension granted: April 2006)
Report: Report of the Resource Sharing Transition Team
Creation of a Scholarly Communication Package
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Bill Brockman
Membership: Becky Albitz, Greg Crawford, Kristi Jensen, Ellen Kempf, Michael Pelikan
Charge:
1. Consider who should be involved in creating this package.
2. Consider the users. You may want to meet with graduate students or informed faculty.
3. Consider key University and national discussions that will impact students such as the ETD project or the recent letter sent to by the MLA to all members regarding the future of the scholarly monograph and the possible impact on the tenure system.
4. Decide how to best present the information web based package, packet distributed at the Graduate Student Forum, others.
5. Create the package of information
6. Create a public relations plan to inform the graduate student population and their professors of this resource.
Deadline/duration: June 2003 and for discussion at the 2003 Collection Development Retreat
Report: Scholarly Communication Package Final Report
More information available at: SCPT web site
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Diane Zabel
Membership: Delores Fidishun, Daniel Mack, Henry Pisciotta, John Riddle, Diane Zabel
Charge:
1. Create a selector's "in-box" exercise.
2. Save five to ten items from your "in-box," which can come from email, phone calls, face-to-face encounters, or a piece of mail. Each item should be representative of the sorts of challenges encountered in work as a subject specialist and selector.
3. New selectors will be asked to bring something from their "in-boxes" as well.
4. Format of CCL fall meeting will be a panel with Task Force members describing the item as well as the method used to handle it. Some items may lead to a discussion and other may pass quickly, but the idea would be an open session with discussion, questions, and alternative ideas coming forward.
5. Work with the departments (specifically Acquisitions and FDST who place information in the manual). There is no need to duplicate efforts and it may be possible to reduce duplication and effort by collapsing pieces together and giving one unit responsibility. See the work just done with the FDST to collapse the collections and acquisitions calendar together.
6. Identify and eliminate duplication and inaccuracy. The most serious example is referrals to librarians who are not longer working for the Libraries but there are others.
Deadline/duration: April 1, 2003 and for discussion at the 2003 Collection Development Retreat
Report: Collection Development Manual
Selector's Manual and Toolbox Review
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan
Chair: Diane Zabel
Membership: Emily Forwood, Doris Herr, Daniel Mack, Bruce Reid, Stephen Woods
Charge:
1. Review the current manual and identify confusing and missing elements.
2. Review the Tool Box to identify confusing and missing elements.
3. Review both the manual and the tool box and access is the correct material is in front of the firewall with open access (in the manual) and behind the firewall with PSUL only access (in the tool box). Consider this model and create criteria to guide future decisions.
4. Review the index, table of contents and carefully consider how information is found in the manual
5. Work with the departments (specifically Acquisitions and FDST who place information in the manual). There is no need to duplicate efforts and it may be possible to reduce duplication and effort by collapsing pieces together and giving one unit responsibility. See the work just done with the FDST to collapse the collections and acquisitions calendar together.
6. Identify and eliminate duplication and inaccuracy. The most serious example is referrals to librarians who are not longer working for the Libraries but there are others.
Deadline/duration: Ongoing
Report: Collection Development "Companion"
Appointed by: Ann Snowman
Chair: Barbara Coopey
Membership: Rich Cowen, Trish Notartomas, Wayne Stump, Russ Souchak
Charge:
- Identify the pros and cons of the current self-check machines. What problems need to be resolved with the new equipment?
- Identify and involve stakeholders.
- Answer the question: What more do we want the self-checks to do that they are not doing now?
- Investigate what is available on the market.
- Answer: Can we run the old and new together?
- Where should the cluster be?
- Is wireless an option?
- Make a recommendation on which vendors to invite for a demonstration.
Deadline/duration: Spring 2005
Report: Final Report
Appointed by: Rosann Bazirjian
Chair: Heather Benner
Membership: Grace Aumiller, Nan Butkovich, Polly Daniels, Cindy Stellabotte, Beth Watson
Charge:
1. Find ways to automate the serials claiming process to make it more efficient and less time consuming for the staff. Investigate the following three options in an effort to make the claiming process less redundant:
2. Determine what needs to be done to start producing claim notices from the SIRSI system.
3. Modify current claim reports to make them vendor friendly.
4. X12 claiming through the serials control record.
Since not all vendors currently allow X12 claiming, pursue a combination of all three of these options so that any one of these options can be implemented depending on the vendor.
5. The Task Force should benchmark with other large SIRSI libraries to see how they are handling the claiming of serials.
6. Claim responses play an important role in the proper functioning of the claims process. Therefore, the task force should recommend and explore a mechanism for an efficient way of inputting vendor claim responses into our serials records.
7. Staffing issues must also be considered in this process. Is there a better way to organize our staff around the claiming process? For example, should everyone be responsible for claiming, or only one or two people, should there be a dedicated position for claiming, should claiming be divided alphabetically by journal title, or even by subject library? Please consider these and other options.
Deadline/duration: May 16, 2003
Report: Serials
Claiming Task Force Final Report
Appointed by: Nancy Eaton, Sally Kalin, Jack Sulzer, Lisa German
Chair: Gregory Crawford
Membership: Gregory Crawford, Lisa German, Virginia Lingle, Rebecca Mugridge, Laura Probst, Judy Swarthout
Charge: To study the impact on the delivery of public and technical services due to the integration of Hershey, Dickinson, and Harrisburg into the University Libraries, and to develop recommendations for optimal services.
Deadline/duration: February 2006
Report: Report of the Services Transition Team, Public Services Function List, Technical Services Function List
Appointed by: Sally Kalin
Chair: Wilson Hutton
Membership: Ann Snowman, Bob Seeds, Laurie Probst, Frank Schrader, Sandy Ball, Len White, Maria Ruth
Charge: To develop a signage policy for the University Park Libraries that considers all types of signage, e.g., wayfinding, informational, etc., from the standpoints of standards, aesthetics, maintenance, modification, and replacement. The signage policy should ensure accurate, consistent, and functional signage throughout the University Park Libraries.
Deadline/duration: The Committee chair will bring the draft policy to the March 22nd Departments Heads meeting (or earlier, if desired) for discussion and approval.
Report: Final policy posted on the Libraries' Intranet
Appointed by: Sally Kalin
Chair: Sally Kalin
Membership: LaDawn Benner, Chris Holobar, Earl Houser, Wilson Hutton, Peggy Myers, Virginia Olexy, Amy Paster, Henry Pisciotta, Laurie Probst, Ashley Robinson, Ron Servello, LuAnn Shifter, Loanne Snavely, Ann Snowman, Rick Stringer
Charge: Identify way finding issues as well as represent the interests of Libraries departments/units.
Deadline/duration: Preparation of a way finding plan to be prepared by signage consultant and acceptance by the task force.
Report: N/A- new signage implemented March 2004
Appointed by: Future
of the Web group
Chair: Brian Hoffman
Membership: Andrew Calvin, Wilson Hutton,
Henry Pisciotta, Karen Schwentner
Charge: To create a new look and feel for the Libraries'
web site by selecting a design consultant, providing direction for
the consultant, and working with the consultant to develop an overall
design, sample templates, and a Web style guide.
Deadline/duration: Fall 2006/ Replaced by the Web Steering Committee April 2007
Report: Not available
The Visual Media Investigation Group
Appointed by: Ann Snowman
Chair: Chris Holobar
Membership: Jade Atwill, Rebecca Bichel, Stephanie Gates, Dace Freivalds, Richard Hart, Amanda Maple, David Van de Streek, Alicia White, Elyssa Cahoy
Charge: To investigate visual media circulation issues.
Deadline/duration: June 15, 2004
Report: More information will be available at the task force's web site, which is in progress.
Additional Charge: To consider the matter of duplicating heavily used titles. Consider titles that must be reformatted because they are now available in a new format such as DVD or because the title is no longer available and needs to be preserved through a reformatting process.
Deadline/duration: January 2005
Report: Final Report
Web Swat Team (replaced with Working on the Web "WOW" committee)
Appointed by:
Chairs: Sally Kalin and Jack Sulzer
Membership: Rebecca Bichel, Ellysa Cahoy, Nancy Dewald, Eric Ferrin, Dace Freivalds, Jennifer Gilley, Brain Hoffman, Chris Holobar, Wilson Hutton, Bonnie Imler, Kristi Jensen, Sylvia MacKinnon, Helen Smith, Loanne Snavely, and Lee Stout
Charge: Collaborate on redesign of the University Libraries home page and subordinate links from the main page
Deadline/duration: Upon completion of web redesign
Report: Recommendations current as of June 11, 2003
Update on MetaLib, WoW, CMS Implementation (PPT)
WoW (Working on the Web) Task Force
Appointed by: Bonnie MacEwan and Laurie Probst
Chair: Helen Smith
Membership: Nancy Dewald, Jennifer Gilley, Brian Hoffman, Eric Novotny, Bonnie Osif, Helen Smith, Carol Wright
Charge: Building on the work and discussions of the Working on the Web group, the Libraries is now positioned to move forward in the redesign of its web site and the selection and implementation of a content management system. In consultation with the Associate Deans for University Park and the Campuses, we charge this group to:
1. Develop specifications for the CMS request for proposals that address the needs identified in the Working on the Web discussions.
2. Develop the framework for the information infrastructure of the top levels of the Libraries web site.
3. Assume responsibility from the Web Swat Team for oversight activities for the top levels of the Libraries web site.
4. Consult widely across library units and with the CMS Task Force, both to report on the group's progress and to solicit feedback.
5. Discuss your recommendations with the larger Working on the Web group.
6. Consult with the Assistant Dean for Collections and Scholarly Communication and the Head of Public Services on recommendations for user testing and assessment projects to support the work of the group.
Deadline/duration: First quarter, 2005
Report: Final Report
Revised: 11/30/06
Penn State Home | Libraries Home | Libraries Web Search | CAT Search | Penn State Search