Penn State University Libraries - 010412 Minutes (Staff Only)

Collection Services Advisory Group Meeting Minutes
January 4, 2012

Attendees: L. German, B. Alan, B. Albitz, D. Brennan, D. Childress, G. Crawford (minute taker), C. Giardina, J. Hughes, S. Kellerman, H. Pisciotta, T. Pyatt, N. Schlotzhauer, A. Snowman, G. White, D. Van de Streek

[Note: although some items were discussed out of the agenda order, I have placed the discussions under the appropriate agenda item.]

1. Goals for 2012 (L. German)

L. German expressed her major collections-related goals for the year.

First is the creation of a robust data warehouse. Acquisitions is currently working on this. The goal is to be able to share data on acquisitions and collections easily. The graduate assistant will work on this project also.

Second is getting the Collection Assessment Program off the ground. (see report of the CAPT below).

L. German also requests that the group think of specific collections-related goals and send them out to the group by January 13. She welcomes our input and feels that our goals should be hers. The big question is, what do we want her to do for the Libraries related to collections.

2. CIC Deals (L. German)

Developing a process for making decisions on products:
This item arose after the CIC needed a quick decision on 2 purchases: the Ashgate 2010-11 package and the Vogue back files. Since neither item was on the priority lists for purchases and due to the cost of $40K, L. German declined the purchase. She wanted the Group’s feedback on the appropriate actions/process to use in making such a decision, especially for CIC “opt-in” decisions with a short turnaround time. B. Albitz stated that the regular procedure has been to ask selectors in the relevant subject areas for their feedback. Those with knowledge of the funds available, i.e., L. German in particular, will need to be involved, since there are limited funds available for such purchases. L. German also stressed that the process also needs to take into account the “big picture,” specifically the strategic directions of the UL as related to collections. L. German asked G. White to reach out to the campuses, including Law and Medicine, to be part of the decisions.

ProQuest has been requesting that the UL purchase PQ Complete. Due to the availability of other similar products and due to the $40K price, the Group decided not to purchase PQ Complete.

3. Update from Planning Team for Forum #2

The Forum is schedule for Feb. 7. Many of the groups identified for presentations have yet to meet, but each will present at the Forum. H. Pisciotta suggested that each group develop a question or questions to solicit feedback to help the groups with their work. These questions should be distributed in advance of the Forum.

4. Reports from Subgroups:

a.Preservation Standards - Nothing new to report.

b. Print Retention - The group met in December and will meet again on January 31.

c. Approval Plans - B. Alan reported that there has been no action on approval plans yet, but that the YBP plans need to be consolidated. He also provided an update on the acquisitions budget. There is little continuing money and no large reserves. The collection development calendar has changed this year. Due to stricter accountability guidelines, priorities need to guide spending. For next year, inflation costs are estimated at $400-500K with probably no new money.

d. Collection Assessment Program Team (CAPT) - The CAPT, under the direction of H. Pisciotta, presented their status report. To help with the collection assessment process, the group is writing a manual for both assist in completing the annual measures and the discipline-specific studies. The goal is to give examples of how to derive appropriate data and guidelines on how to do the requested analyses.

The pop-up survey will make assessment of e-resources more effective, especially in the provision of the context of e-resource resource use. The demographic data is very important. MINES is an alternative, but the UL would still have to provide much of the labor to do the survey and there is also the question of customization of the actual survey. If the UL uses its own pop-up survey, we will have total control over the questions. L. German will present this at the Dean’s retreat so that it can become a high priority and placed on the ITECH work schedule.

e. RCR Group reviewing Collection Development Companion (G. White) - This group is still working and has a target date for completion of March 1.

added: f. Collections Allocations Team - The Team has not yet met, but has scheduled a retreat on February 13. An ANGEL site and a Wiki have been created for the work of the team.

Minutes prepared by G. Crawford