MnObe Directorsí Meeting [return to minutes ]

November 21, 2003

Note Taker: Sam Demas

Present: Leslie Mollner, Dave Collins, Terri Fishel, Dani Roach, Kathy Tezla, Sam Demas, Mary Sue Lovett, Bryn Geffert, Mike Kathman, Sister Stephanie Weisgram, Jim Parsons

While the group was assembling Terri and others explained Macalester's decision not to participate in the next phase of the MINITEX Science Direct deal, and we discussed the pros and cons of the next Big Deal.

Mike Kathman reminded us of the importance of remembering UMN when cancelling print titles from the Science Direct group of publishers, urging us to ensure that someone in the state should retain print subscriptions of titles UMN doesn't have. Terri said CLIC has formed a Collection Development Task Force to look at copy of record for JSTOR titles.

We shared information on our journal review processes and agreed once again that we should share the results of such reviews and try to coordinate our reviews as possible.

We established a Collection Development Working Group made up of two people from each institution: Mary Sue Lovett and Bryn Geffert, Greg Bull and Kathy Tezla, Sr. Stephanie Weisgram and Jim Parsons, Dani Roach and Angi Faiks. Gustavus will be invited to join the group. Kathy Tezla was selected, by a remarkable spin of the bottle, as the facilitator of the group.

The Collection Development Working Group was asked to:
a. Work towards getting on the same cycle for periodical reviews, sharing lists and coordinating cancellations.
b. Produce a consolidate list of the Science Direct print subscriptions and holdings of the 5 colleges. Look at our useage of the e-versions of these titles and ensure that we keep one copy in print in the state and cancel any duplicates in favor of unique titles. The goal is to ensure the widest possible scope of titles in MN.
c. Explore with UMN how we can cooperate with them in providing access to the widest scope of Science Direct journals. Terri will explore with CLIC if they are willing to join use in an exploration with UMN on coordination of journal subscriptions in the interest of best possible statewide access.
d. Report back to the MNOBE Directors at the February meeting on their work on periodical collection development.

Mike Kathman reported that St Johns/St Bens is getting into imaging in a big way and invited discussion among others moving in this direction. St Johns/St Bens is looking at LUNA and Content DM and we discussed potential for consortial cooperation on image management software, the relationship between ArtStor and decisions on image management software, and the possibility of an ACM or MITC or NITLE consortial contract for image management software and/or for ArtStor.

3. SFX
An update on what each school is doing:
Macalester - currently licensing SFX through Ex Libris through July; will consider joining MINITEX deal after that.
St Johns/St Bens - planning to join in MINITEX deal in first round
Carleton and St Olaf - Most likely to wait until further along in shared ILS implementation before making a decision.

Dani Roach demonstrated SFX, first from the user's viewpoint, and then from the staff perspective. Dani's knowledgeable and clear explanations and demonstrations were very helpful. They engendered a long, detailed, and very useful discussion of SFX (article level URL resolver software) and of the related genre of locator tools (title level locator sofwrare like Serials Solutions). We discussed how they work, how to set them up, and potential for cooperation in setup and maintenance.

Terri asked if we want to explore this OCLC/WorldCat feature which allows one to set up a pre-defined group of libraries that patrons can search. It seems to have potential for ILL and Reference purposes. Terri did not have pricing information, but will invite Bruce Wilms to demo the product at our Dec. 19 meeting.

Kathy Tezla led a discussion of two options for cooperative collection analysis. The Library Dynamics tool looks promising, but is not ready for prime time, involves ongoing costs, and is likely to be expensive. Our conversation focused on the OCLC proposal Kathy had distributed in advance. There seemed to be considerable interest in a joint collection analysis project. We asked the Collection Development Working Group to attend our December 19 meeting and make a recommendation and presentation to include:
a. Examples of the kinds of reports we would get from running the software across our collections;
b. A document specifying what outcomes we would expect and what the costs and benefits to the consortium would be. Examples of the kinds of outcomes mentioned in the discussion were: 1. collection overlap studies that could serves as the basis for some cooperative collection development policies, including the identification of areas of exceptional collection strength within the consortium, 2. collection analyses that would be useful in program reviews on our campuses and for weeding purposes.
c. An analysis of the pros and cons of using as a lower cost (?) alternative the impressive new collection analysis features of WorldCat demonstrated by Bryn.

The meeting adjourned about noon for lunch, graciously provided by our hosts at the campus center, where the conversation went on, and revealed that Mike Kathman and his staff were marking on this very day his 30th anniversary as director of the library!