Bonnie Tijerina March 28th, 2008
Below are issues that were touched upon. Hopefully we can have further discussions on these.
It was suggested that we need best practices for gathering and reporting usage statistics. Margaret Hogarth and Virginia Kinman will begin work on this.
Are libraries developing a culture of assessment?
We need to figure out a way to share data with others so we can incorporate the information into how we make decisions.
How are we interpreting or adding value to usage data?
It was asked if there is a way we could derive baselines/benchmarks for subject areas. A ratio between use and FTE was suggested.
Institutions want to use the data that they have to create a better picture of their users. They are working on connecting the data pieces to see where the information is leading. Who is doing this and how are these results used?
NISO Library and Scholarly Usage Data Conversation Wiki
NISO Library and Scholarly Usage Data Conversation wiki was created following the NISO Usage Data Forum, 1-2 November 2007, in Dallas, TX primarily to provide a place for folks who care about library and scholarly usage data to work together to develop a decision framework to help those organizations trying to figure out how to approach usage data.
Bonnie Tijerina March 28th, 2008
This roundtable discussion on Usage Stats was lead by Margaret Hogarth(UC-Rvierside), George Boston(Western Michigan University), and Michael Whang(Western Michigan University). This is an overview of topics covered during the discussion. Contact Margaret for the full notes and contact information - margaret.hogarth at ucr.edu
To begin our discussion, we took a survey to see how many people in the room had well-established usage statistics gathering programs and tools and 4 responded. Most of the other attendees were gathering and processing usage statistics, but doing a significant amount of data manipulation. The 4 gave us an overview of what their gathering looks like.
Nancy Beals (Wayne State) reported that they acquired Scholarly Stats in January, but haven’t used the reports yet. They use Innovative’s ERM and SUSHI, and are supplementing data loading by hand. They were able to justify the cost of the system through the efforts of their Systems Librarian. It will be for use in collection development decisions.
They are still experiencing problems with the cost per use data and SUSHI.
Virginia R. Kinman’s institution (Longwood University) recently purchased Serials Solutions 360 Counter.
They have not been focusing on journal-level statistics, but would like that information. She manually puts non-COUNTER data into COUNTER format so it can be evaluated across the COUNTER-compliant resources.
An assistant does the download and Virginia does the number crunching.
They have set up a fairly complicated Access database with a table for all of elements that match to provider and database. There is a form for each database and the assistant enters the metrics. The assistant prepares the reports and puts them into Excel. They are an Innovative shop, but do not have an ERM. They have put in cost data. Statistics are gathered on a monthly basis.
Joseph Thomas (Cornell University) pointed out that he is new to Cornell and is still in learning mode. They use Scholarly Stats and an ERM, but are having some trouble. They also use JUR (Journal Use Reports) from ISI. Joseph asked what is the right amount of work to do so there is evidence that a resource is being used?
Anita Wilcox’s institution (University College Cork, Ireland) has a 2-tier system for usage statistics. She gathers the local statistics and those for the consortium level, also. In this way members of the consortium share the burden of downloading and disseminating statistics. The report goes out to participating institutions and to the Department of Education. The institutions can then use the statistics reports to negotiate with vendors. In illustration, in 2006 they noticed that Wiley Ref Works wasn’t being used much except for 5 titles. They took the usage information back to Wiley and renegotiated for those 5 titles and Wiley agreed. When institutions buy from vendors, the vendors are aware purchases are based on usage.
Usage statistics are downloaded monthly. There are over 200 databases, so it is a huge task to maintain on a local level.
Elizabeth Winter March 25th, 2008
At the Workflow Roundtable, the group also discussed the ways in which they were using a variety of tools and technologies to assist with workflow-related issues.
Some of them were:
- A blog to track resource problems and experiences (to keep track for personal use, in case the same problem comes up again)
- Scanning/digitizing license agreements and keeping them on a shared drive so that they can be retrieved and emailed to library employees as needed.
- ERMs: Obviously, this is a major tool many libraries are working on using for many things; some mentioend using existing problem-tracking fields or creating customized fields for this purpose, so that library employees can see when resources are experiencing problems.
- Adapted ILS modules to deal with e-resources in lieu of an ERM, e.g., eTracker (Deberah England from Wright State Univ. presented on this during ER&L 2008)
- An internal listserv with a searchable archives feature for those who work with e-resources to share info.
- A wiki for communication between collection development and acquisitiosn regarding e-resource subscriptions (new purchases, renewals, changes, etc. We are doing this at Georgia Tech…a presentation I gave at ALA 2007 in part on this topic is available at http://r2consulting.org/ppnts/GTWikisEtc.ppt)
Elizabeth Winter March 25th, 2008
Due to popular demand on the ER&L 2008 Thought Cloud @ http://www.electroniclibrarian.org/tagcloud, a group of 25-30 met to discuss workflow on the last day of ER&L 2008.
The notes below are from the group’s discussion. Feel free to continue the discussion and share more ideas using the “comments” feature below…
Some problems/issues raised by participants regarding workflow were:
- Dealing with change
- New to e-resources work
- Stagnant workflow
- Too much work
- Staffing–limited skills/knowledge (are the people who have the time to do the work willing and able to do the work?)
- Communication between departments w/in your library
- Training (time-consuming, difficult)
- Staff mindset (print-based/inflexible/don’t want to learn new things)
- Huge variety of work (all vendors are different, many different types of tasks = hard to delegate)
- How to reorganize staff to deal with the mass of e-resources
Some suggestions offered to selected issues were:
Re. “too much work”:
- Make print your backlog: Prioritize training people on working with “e” and if you don’t have enough time to do everything, then don’t be afraid to allow print to pile up a bit while you work out the “e” workflow
- Involve students in check-in: Don’t be afraid of “devaluing” the work by allowing student workers to do it–there are some reliable and smart students out there (the trick is finding them!).
- Outsource: Prioritize the duties that need to be done across your department, regardless of whether they are print or “e”; then figure out which duties can be outsourced; outsource them and train/re-train staff in-house to do the specialized things that can’t be outsourced
Re. “Staffing–limited skills/knowledge (are the people who have the time to do the work willing and able to do the work?)”:
- If your organization is amenable to this and you don’t already have the staff in your department, figure out how to involved people in other areas of the library who are interested/willing/able to help with “e” work.
- Sometimes you just have to wait it out and take advantage of attrition. When someone retires or a position is vacated, do the work of retooling (and reclassifying, if needed) it to suit the work that needs to be done. Then make sure you don’t settle in your hiring process–get someone who is willing and able to do what needs to be done.
Re. “Staff mindset (print-based/inflexible/don’t want to learn new things)”:
- Do the sometimes difficult and tedious work of helping staff make the connection between print work and electronic work. Sit down and figure out how what you want them to do with “e” relates to what they already know how to do with print. Then explain it to them…several times, if necessary. It’s incumbent upon us as supervisors to do this bit of critical thinking/communication/salesmanship.
Bonnie Tijerina March 20th, 2008
Topics we’ll discuss this Friday at the ER&L Roundtable Discussions include:
Moving to online only
Open Data and the Future of ERM
Check out the schedule.
Bonnie Tijerina September 27th, 2007
Informal Discussion at LITA Forum
Time: Saturday 10/6, 8-9am
Silverton Room Molly Brown Room
ER&L and LITA ERM Interest Group are hosting an informal discussion about the state of e-resource management at this year’s LITA Forum.
Grab some breakfast and come in for a discussion.
Join us as we continue our discussions (started at ER&L, ACRL and NASIG) on the future of e-resources management. We’ve been exploring ideas of how to create a community, a collaborative work space, an understanding, and a vocabulary about how we need to manage and make accessible our electronic content.
These conversations spurred this blog and ideas for other collaborative spaces, like the projects wiki.
I will touch on some of the highlights of the discussions held so far and possible future projects.
This is very informal, allowing for time to talk about what’s happening in your libraries and your ideas for ways to improve.
Bonnie Tijerina July 24th, 2007
I was not in attendance at NASIG this year, but Jill Emery and Dana Walker held what sounded like a lively conversation with a standing room only crowd in Louisville. Below are Dana’s notes.
Key issues discussed included:
â€¢ ERM implementation and workflow planning
â€¢ Staffing for electronic resource management
â€¢ Standards for electronic resource data management
Participants expressed the need for an ERM implementation and workflow planning web space. An online community where libraries could share ERM implementation experiences and issues. â€“ (We think ER&L site would be a perfect place for this!!)
There was considerable discussion regarding the quality of knowledgebase data. Is there a place for agents, other vendors, to improve the data in KBs.
Participants would like to see ERM vendors supply an optional default set up so initial ERM implementation could be simplified and streamlined.
How should libraries manage staffing for e-resources? If 60-70% of budget is spent on e-resources but only 20-30% of staffing thereâ€™s a gap. Typically managing e-resources requires more higher level staff.
â€¢ What level of staffing is needed both initially and for ongoing maintenance?
â€¢ We lack trained support staff to help with electronic resource management.
â€¢ What is the appropriate staff classification for ERM/SFX management?
Whatâ€™s still holding us back from driving the ERM market?
â€¢ We created home grown systems and stopped when vendors started creating ERMs.
â€¢ Biggest problem is coverage loads.
â€¢ Canâ€™t get standardized data from publishers or aggregators.
â€¢ More consulting between ERM vendors and libraries to understand local workflow.
NASIG and ER&L could potentially provide continuing education regional workshops for ERM implementation planning.
Kelly Smith June 29th, 2007
A half dozen folks got together for an informal discussion at NASIG 2007 to brainstorm ideas for improving the 2008 ER&L Conference.Â Due to vacation and other issues, I’m posting these discussion notes a month after they occured, so if I’ve forgotten things or stated them incorrectly, perhaps the other folks who were there can add comments to this.Â Or, if you weren’t at the meeting, but would like to add additional comments for the 2008 conference planners to consider, feel free to do so here.
1.Â Â Â Â Â What went well at ER&L 2007?
a.Â Â Â Â Â Â Plenty of time for networking
b.Â Â Â Â Â Reasonable time between sessions
c.Â Â Â Â Â Â Liked the programs with different tracking colors
d.Â Â Â Â Â Program size was nice.
e.Â Â Â Â Â Â Wireless in the meetings (however, wireless tough to set up â€“ maybe put directions in program or send to attendees ahead of time so attendees can check with their IT people. Maybe put on moodle?)
f.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Internet cafÃ© went well
g.Â Â Â Â Â Â People really enjoyed tour of Georgia Tech
h.Â Â Â Â Â Â Refreshments provided all day long, not just at breaks
2.Â Â Â Â Â What could be improved?
a.Â Â Â Â Â Â Moodle site not used very much â€“ general dissatisfaction w/moodle
b.Â Â Â Â Â People couldnâ€™t print in Internet CafÃ© â€“ maybe provide little pencils and paper for internet cafÃ©
c.Â Â Â Â Â Â Session at conference on how we can use the Moodle site, or perhaps before the conference. Â There are really weird pathways to stuff.
d.Â Â Â Â Â 1st year there was more about digital repositories
e.Â Â Â Â Â Â Help give it a better identity.Â Making it clear that weâ€™re different from NASIG.Â Emphasize that focus is not just tech services people.
f.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Strive to keep the conference a mix of areas.Â Like Solinet.
g.Â Â Â Â Â Â Need focused marketing on various areas of librarianship and related fields
h.Â Â Â Â Â Â Need to get the website cleaned up and clarify the focus
i.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â You have to drill too deep to find stuff, and then go back out and log back in to get to stuff
j.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We need something more current for the blog - who will keep content fresh to keep it interesting?
k.Â Â Â Â Â Pull various things together for the site?Â Keep it constrained to just conference stuff?
3.Â Â Â Â Â How about having more informal time?Â â€œunconferenceâ€ â€œlibrary campâ€ â€“ a time for project feedback and resource sharing.
a.Â Â Â Â Â Â Generational thing?Â Good to have a mix that includes both planned andÂ unplanned time.
b.Â Â Â Â Â Have a short planning cycle to give currency (1st conference seemed more current)
c.Â Â Â Â Â Â Cool program.
d.Â Â Â Â Â The first year was more free-flowingÂ - had more unplanned time.
e.Â Â Â Â Â Â Ideas: Track discussions; informal roundtables; follow-up w/keynote speaker
f.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Weakness: venue not ideal for small group discussion â€“ maybe we could book one additional traditional conference room thatâ€™s set up for discussion sessions and not necessarily IT hookup.
g.Â Â Â Â Â Â Encourage attendees to join in the blog.
h.Â Â Â Â Â Â Vendors â€“ need to define the role of vendors more clearlyÂ - whoâ€™s being targeted? â€“ make sure vendors know what to expect and who to expect
4.Â Â Â Â Â Some other ideas
a. Â Have a component of the conference where the attenders shape the content â€“ place where people could put important ideas or words â€“ leading to facilitated discussion of issues on final day.
Bonnie Tijerina June 4th, 2007
Join us as we continue our discussions on the future of e-resources management and on defining the future direction of products, services and content within the context of electronic resources. We will explore ideas of how to create a community, an understanding, and a vocabulary about how we need to manage and make accessible our electronic content which is taking over more and more of our materials budgets.
Appetizers will be provided by the Electronic Resources & Libraries group.
Saturday June 23rd, 4-6pm
The Hawk ‘n’ Dove
We will meet in the Loft (upstairs)
329 Pennsylvania Ave. SE (near the Library of Congress)
G-Map Directions from the Convention Center
Closet Metro stop: Capital South on the orange and blue lines
jemery May 17th, 2007
One of things my group talked in-depth about was OCLC’s attempt to build one knowledgebase that everyone could contribute to and borrow from for electronic resource management. One of the more interesting comments that was made during this discussion was a reminder that libraries had initially started along this road with the advent of JAKE and in the end, our collaborative spirit petered out and this ended up being one of the failed collaborative efforts to carry forth into the openURL realm. One of the questions we need to ask ourselves is do we really have the staff time to expend on creating another shared knowledgebase of this sort and are librarians really committed to this level of collaboration?
There major issues identified with electronic journal transfers included: problem of titles changing from one provider to anotherâ€¦short catalog of standards/best practices for web site such as the transfer journal group & creation of database of tracking of title changes from one publisher to another, rights management change from one publisher to another and from one year to the next, and journals changing pricing models and how to management that and how to capture this in a knowledgebase. Everyone at the table agreed that this was an ideal place for subscription agents to step-in and help to create tools for librarians to keep up with these changes and bits of metadata.
Our group also spent quite a bit of time discussing archiving initiatives and how best to manage back-files and older generation material. It was noted that at this time there really are not any digital preservation standards available. It was also noted that we have been reliying heavily on JSTOR to provide us with archival material and we want to start investigating other alternatives. It was suggested that consortia could play a vital role in this arena.
Then the group began a fairly intense discussion on standards and why librarians are slow adopters of new standards. Many felt it was due to lacking the tech savvy on how to best implement standards prior to our systems and software incorporating new standards into their platforms. This forum could help out the process by developing a best practices documentation on the web site in order to push harder for standards development where needed.
jemery May 17th, 2007
Here’s a brief summary of some of the more general ideas from the ACRL discussion. Please comment if I’ve missed anything or if you want to expand on anything.
*We need to include consortia and consortia staff when sending out invitations to discussion group meetings
*It was felt that control was too strong word and not truly getting at what we are attempting to do with electronic resources. It was suggested to change this segment to “Manage” instead.
* We need to create a segment or separate web site where all related standards development is captured so that we can truly see what standards are being created, at what point in development each standard may be at, and hopefully so we can see where there are intersections or needs to fill in gaps.
Bonnie Tijerina May 3rd, 2007
A group of about 50 people met in Baltimore during the ACRL Conference to talk about e-resources and how we as librarians would like to see things move forward. We started with a presentation given by Jill and Elizabeth and then broke into three groups. Here’s a few topics covered (I don’t think I’ve listed them all):
- Jillâ€™s group talked about standards, authority control and vendorâ€™s responsibilities.
- Elizabethâ€™s group focused on work flow, staffing and budgeting.
- My group talked about how we want to see resources made accessible to our users.
We had great discussions and lively debate. This week the three of us will be posting our notes.
jemery March 22nd, 2007
We are looking for the first 50 participants who are willing to visualize a library not focused solely on print resource management and willing to go out on a limb and conceptualize the library which is focused on user access and management of online resources & services. Four questions we will be brainstorming about, to try to develop our future scenario today, are:
- What online resources would you collect?
- How would you connect people to these new collections?
- How will you control and manage these services?
- How will you provide your users with the most correct information possible?
Please join: Jill Emery, Bonnie Tijerina, & Elizabeth Winter to learn more about the ERAMS concept and the future possibility this concept holds for libraries.
Where: Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards, Chesapeake Room, Baltimore, MD
When: Saturday, March 31, 2007
Time: 2:00 - 4:00 PM
Light refreshments will be available.
Please RSVP to Jill Emery at J.Emery@austin.utexas.edu by March 29, 2007.