Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Present: Pat Wilkinson (Chair), Ewa Barczyk, Barb Baruth, Marc Boucher, Kathy Davis, Lorie Docken, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Chris Goss, Peter Gottlieb, Tony Gulig, Leanne Hansen, Joyce Huang, John Krogman, Mordecai Lee, Valerie Malzacher, Ed Meachen, Paul Moriarty, Mary Rieder, Bob Rose, Kathy Schneider, Philip Schwarz, Brenda Swannack, Felix Unaeze, Ed VanGemert.
Guests: Linda Voyles, Don Muccino, Roger Bottom, Mike Reeb (all from Endeavor), Nolan Pope, Richard Reeb
1. Wilkinson called the meeting to order at . All attendees introduced themselves,
including two new CUWL members, Kathy Davis, new director at
2. Strategic update from Endeavor (Muccino, Bottoms, and M. Reeb)
did a presentation on Endeavor’s current organizational structure to clarify
who is accountable within the organization for specific services and
products. He said that Endeavor wants to
improve communication with its customers.
He gave an overview of Endeavor products and the current customer base
for the various product lines. Muccino said that Endeavor wants to support the library mission
in three areas: education, research, and preservation. The company is especially interested in how Institutional
Repositories will evolve. Endeavor’s objectives
to achieve its mission include: emphasis on interoperability, innovation,
customer service and customer-driven development, and
initiatives include: installation of worldwide
advisory boards and introduction of evidence-based development
methodology. Endeavor recognizes the
need to release new products that have fewer bugs. Endeavor is developing “synergies” with its
parent company Elsevier in certain areas of development. Customers like the WebSupport site and that’s been targeted for further
Q&A - Frazier asked about problems with Unicode rollout and
is it being widely implemented? Muccino said it’s being implemented by institutions of all
sizes and various consortia. Feedback is
positive thus far. The biggest problem
is the down time required to implement it locally. Some users skip Unicode and go directly to
version 5. Pope said that, because UW has
system-wide UB, all campuses had to go to Unicode at the same time. Moriarty asked if new customers are especially
interested in UB. Muccino
said that UB is primarily being used by consortia that are growing and bringing
in more members. Frazier asked about overall
growth in the business. Muccino said most growth is
on the digital product side but the Voyager customer base continues to grow
also. Bottom said that Endeavor is
trying to figure out where libraries are going in the future and would like to
work with some current customers that are thinking through the repository
issues. Planned areas of improvement at
Endeavor include: make reporting easier for Voyager customers, allow interoperability
between Endeavor products and the other systems libraries are using, and provide
the best possible user interface out of the box while allowing local
customization to be easier. Endeavor is
interested in the customer/user demand for single search box (like Google).
Wilkinson asked who they survey to get user feedback on interfaces. Bottom said Endeavor works with the Elsevier
user-centered design group. The process
involves identifying various persona (typical types of
users) that represent both casual and expert users and working directly with
them on interface development. Endeavor
thinks that a new Voyager interface will come in phases. Some changes can be done easily, while others
require changes in underlying code. Endeavor
used the persona-based process on the initial interface development for the
3. Demo of OCLC’s Group Catalog and discussion on Group Services (Wilkinson, Malzacher and Schneider)
Wilkinson reviewed the major features of the group catalog. This is a strategic opportunity to create a catalog that is part of a wider world of resources. The catalog would be up-to-date in terms of including all of the OCLC records for the participating organizations and would provide a platform for resource sharing.
Wilkinson stressed that, when looking at demos, keep in mind that we do not need to set ours up in the same way. Basically, the user is searching WorldCat using the First Search interface. If an item is not in WorldCat, it will not be searchable. Features of the Group Catalog include additional information about the item, cover art, format searching and format identification for items, local branding, scopes and super scopes, promotion of local items, deep linking into local catalog for shelf status, and links for resource sharing
Wilkinson did a demo of Montana Group Catalog. He accessed the catalog using an
authorization and password, but said that there are various ways to
authenticate. When logged on, he was
identified as a patron of the Montana State Library. He pointed out the various FirstSearch search capabilities, including basic, advanced,
and expert. He showed a search of all
commented that using the Voyager simultaneous search for the “discovery” of
items available at other UW campuses is clunky, but that requesting an item
using UB and its circulation functionality is acceptable. The discovery feature of an OCLC Group
Catalog is likely to be better than with the Voyager simultaneous
said that we cannot go back to an ILL model for all of our resource
sharing. Boucher said some features of
simultaneous searching don’t work great, but shouldn’t we be working with
Endeavor to improve that instead of taking the Group Catalog approach? Each campus can decide whether to use the
OCLC Group Catalog as its public catalog or to stay with its Voyager
catalog. Rose expressed concern that the
Group Catalog would not discover materials not in OCLC, including documents and
items still needing retrospective conversion. Frazier said that resource
Malzacher has been investigating the relationship between the Group Catalog and placing requests through Universal Borrowing. After searching the Group Catalog, a user can link from a specific item to its record in a local Voyager catalog. If the user has set the search scope for UW campuses, the results list may include more than one UW campus catalog. Deep-linking into the local catalog is based on a guided search for the ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number present in the Group Catalog record. This usually works, but once in a while the deep link results in a blank Voyager search screen, requiring the user to repeat the search in Voyager.
Malzacher identified some questions and issues that need to be addressed. If multiple UW libraries have an item, users may tend to self-select a library based on criteria such as location, size, familiarity, etc. Will load leveling be an issue? Will the user need to log in each time he/she navigates to a Voyager catalog to place a UB request for any item? Will this process be intuitive? Will users even think to navigate to the local UW catalog and remember that they can place a UB request? What is the relationship between ILLiad and the Group Catalog? Malzacher suggested asking OCLC if they can provide a link from the Group Catalog that includes a simultaneous search of our Voyager catalogs on the OCLC number for the item of interest. Is this technically possible? Would the user understand what’s happening?
did a demo in the ILLINET catalog which includes organizations with Voyager
catalogs and a history of using UB for resource sharing. She did not have to log on initially. She did
a title search for a book, picked a record, and clicked on a library that owns
the item. The user typically has to pick
a specific library. She chose Roosevelt
Library, a campus that uses Voyager, and the system did a guided search in the
local catalog by OCLC number. It took
her to the Universal catalog in which
Schneider initiated the discussion about the Group Catalog costs and timeline. The only new functionality in the Group Catalog (over WorldCat) is the ability to scope searches and the only new costs are for that scoping. The cost is between $32-34k a year. For the first 18 months, this cost will be paid for by WILS. After June 2008, the individual campuses would need to pick up the costs. She distributed information on what those costs would be for each campus, assuming that all campuses would be on subscription access by then. She used the approach of each campus paying its share of the cost ultimately – not centrally funded. She has sent information to 67 libraries initially, inviting them to join. Schneider and Wilkinson said that everyone participating in the Group Catalog will see the catalog scope, but others won’t. Schneider expects this to initially be primarily an academic library group, with a few public libraries participating. Presentations on the OCLC Group Catalog will be given at WLA and for the technical colleges this fall. They need to know by October 1 who is going to participate in Phase 1. Joiners in Phase 1 will be committed to pay their share of the Group Catalog in July 2007. The initial participants will define the scopes and determine what the name will be. Frazier expressed concern that UB transactions would be steered into ILL transactions. Barczyk asked how feasible the Group Catalog is if many UW campuses opt out and suggested that it defeats the purpose of one system/one library. VanGemert is disappointed in the low volume usage of UB at this point. Do we expect that requests will increase with the Group Catalog? It still won’t be as simple or intuitive for users as a catalog like a public library system catalog. VanGemert wants to support anything that promotes increased usage of materials in the UW System. Boucher asked that cost information be clarified, especially for the Colleges.
Before voting on the Group Catalog proposal, Rose asked about who is actually voting – CUWL as a group or individual campuses. We are voting as a group. Malzacher suggested that if we plan to ask OCLC to do some customization work to accommodate UB, we all need to be in this together. Docken said it’s possible that UW System could fund the UW Group Catalog costs centrally, if cost is the main issue. But what about the concerns about what’s not in the catalog? Rose is concerned that users are being presented with more complexity. It’s disappointing that MetaLib has not allowed us to simplify searching for users. Wilkinson asked what the next step is. Huang moved to accept the Group Catalog proposal with UW System library automation funds paying the $13k for the UW campuses’ costs for the last year of the project. Unaeze seconded. Wilkinson clarified that if the motion passes, all campuses would be included, but they do not all need to participate. Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.
4. Strategic Directions for UW Digital Repository, Task Force Report (Pope)
Pope distributed copies of the report on Strategic Direction Recommendations for a UW Digital Repository from the CUWL Task Force assigned to this task. The Task Force has identified the need for a higher level committee to look at the whole array of digital initiatives being implemented or discussed. Task Force members are concerned about the level of overlapping interests. Campuses are concerned about the need for ongoing funding for overlapping, but related, implementations. Examples are MINDS@UW (currently using D-Space software) and Learn@UW (currently using D2L software). . Baruth asked how this relates to current CIO discussions about content management software. Could CMS be another overlapping implementation? UW-Milwaukee is the only campus currently looking at this seriously. Docken confirmed that there has been no serious systemwide discussion about CMS. Baruth hopes that CIOs all understand the future implications of CMS. Barczyk said that UWM’s CIO is looking at content management for institutional records. Gottlieb said he thinks an institutional repository is about managing the intellectual output of the university, not institutional records. Frazier said that we need to understand that many stakeholders in archiving are not library-related, such as the archiving of course materials. The most important thing is to identify how all these activities overlap. The conversation needs to include non-librarians. Evans commented on the governance structure proposed for the steering committee proposed by the task force. Is it necessary to have an archivist on the committee or a public services librarian? Their inclusion is primarily related to the usability of the final product. Pope said the thinking is that, for archives (faculty-generated materials), we currently have no mechanism for collecting and preserving born-digital materials, but we need to develop one. One of Pope’s primary concerns is the ability to search across the various systems. Barczyk moved to support the recommendation for a higher level steering committee. Boucher seconded. Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Frazier raised the questioned of how other campus libraries
view their role in promoting and supporting the institutional repository. Hansen has built it into liaison and outreach
Prior to lunch, Wilkinson recognized Phil Schwarz’ long service as a UW library staff member, LAM, and, most recently, as interim director at Stout.
5. Approval of CUWL strategic directions document and review of budget recommendations (Huang and Docken)
Huang moved that CUWL accept the latest version of the CUWL Strategic Directions for 2005-2007 as an approved document. Unaeze seconded her motion. Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. A brief version of the document will be done for public distribution.
With the approval of the strategic directions, Docken passed out a budget memo, reviewed the status of the various budgets and presented the proposed budget recommendations for CUWL consideration. There is a 10% reduction in the Library Automation budget for 2005/2006. It is too soon to know whether some or all of this reduction will be restored for 2006/2007. UWSA wanted to preserve the Shared Electronic Collection budget, but a 1.4% reduction was mandated for both years of the biennium.
The following initiatives and allocations from the library automation budget were recommended:
- Voyager hardware replacement and hub expansion: $280,000 in 2005/2006
- UW Digital Library Collection: $200,000 in 2005/2006 and $250,000 in 2006/2007
- Resource sharing Initiatives: $150,000 in 2005/2006 and $175,000 in 2006/2007
- Electronic Resource Management (ERM) software: $200,000 (rough estimate) for 2006/2007
Voyager hardware replacement and hub expansion: With aging hardware and growing maintenance costs, this is the time to expand the library hub model. Moriarty has been encouraging campuses to participate in a hub in lieu of running and maintaining their own server hardware and doing their own software upgrades and patches. There is a plan to expand the current hub at DoIT. Docken recommends upgrading to the new hardware when upgrading to Voyager 5.
UW Digital Library Collection: Docken had spoken with Frazier and Pope earlier about the $50,000 reduction in the budget allocation. They agree that the reduction is viewed as a temporary shift in order to provide a short-term funding increase for resource sharing.
Resource sharing initiatives: Two initiatives are starting up: expanded delivery of non-returnables across UW System using a new net lender compensation plan and expanded use of document suppliers for non-returnables. Both have budgetary implications which will become clearer in the next few years. The estimated costs for the new net lender compensation plan have been increased from $95,000 to $125,000. The budget for British Library Document Supply has been decreased this year, but the overall funding for document suppliers will be increased back to $50,000 next year. Rose asked about BLL expenditures for 2004-2005. Schneider said just under $26,000.
Electronic Resource Management (ERM) software: This needs to be investigated on a system-wide level. No funding is allocated for this year, but $200,000 (a rough estimate) has been earmarked in the budget for 2006/2007, should we decide to proceed. Later this year CUWL should put together a working group to “investigate features of an ERM system including license data, entitlements, and administration of electronic resources.” The initial goal is to understand what the need is for this product and what we would get out of it. If a decision is made to proceed, we will need to consider and review products available in the marketplace. Docken clarified that ERM software is very much tied into the MetaLib/SFX knowledgebase.
There was general discussion about funding for libraries. Frazier acknowledged that, even with UWSA’s extensive cuts, the library funds have been protected as much as possible. CUWL is very grateful for this. Nevertheless, Frazier said that CUWL will need to reintroduce the problematic issues related to no increases to the acquisitions budgets for UW libraries. That message needs to be delivered to the Board of Regents. Wilkinson reminded the group that WLA had offered to help CUWL lobby for library funding at the UW System level last year, but the timing was not right. Meachen reviewed how the UWSA budget evolves, starting in September of the year prior to the new biennium. Docken said that libraries were on the Board of Regents budget request for the past couple years, but didn’t make it on to the governor. Meachen said it makes sense to start the process sooner. Hansen said that the WLA lobbyist thinks it’s best to focus on one main issue. Last time it was funding for public library systems. If WLA retains that approach, CUWL may want to propose that UW libraries be identified as the main issue for the next biennium. Evans moved that the Docken memo and budget recommendations be approved by CUWL and forwarded to Cora Merritt and Ed Meachen. Huang seconded. Wilkinson called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.
6. CDC Report (Richard Reeb)
The last CDC meeting was in
A working group of CDC will closely review the massive amount of data compiled for the serial overlap study. That group will make recommendations on how to approach the process of reducing the level of duplication. Campuses need to review the lists and notify Docken of any errors or titles canceled recently.
Reeb gave a brief update on the Yankee Book Peddler project and distributed a 2005 revision by CDC of the 1999 CDC Policy on Retention of Last Copy.
Reeb said that a sizeable budget deficit is projected for 2006/2007, so CDC is reviewing three major products currently funded by UWSA funds - Web of Science ($223,000), Lexis/Nexis ($242,000), and ABI/Inform ($160,000) – for possible cancellation. Thus far most discussion has focused on WOS. He asked campuses interested in retaining access to WOS to request individual pricing from ISI. We need to send ISI a clear message that the UWSA cancellation discussion is underway. We also need to get individual pricing for Lexis/Nexis and for the premium version of Business Source Elite. UW-Madison plans to purchase the backfile of the Royal Society of Chemistry journals. Access would be extended to all UW campuses for a one-time $2,000 fee, which UW-Milwaukee is willing to pay. Evans asked if Web of Science can be broken out into humanities and social science pieces. Docken will find out.
Frazier moved and Boucher seconded approval of the revised
CDC Policy on Retention of Last Copy. Frazier questioned how the revised policy
will be “implemented” on each campus. Reeb is point
7. Collection Management Task Force Update (Barczyk)
distributed an update report and reviewed the task force recommendations. There
will be an evaluation of the Yankee project at the end of the six month pilot. The Task Force has put together a survey that
is going out to the campuses. One benefit
of the project has already been identified, that staff can now articulate
questions about shared acquisitions activities that would have been difficult
to identify without the trial. The trial
will also help with putting out an RFP for vendors at the end of the year. Although the full survey results will not be
available until later this year,
The biggest concern thus far about having a common vendor relates to discounts. Some campuses currently have better discounts from other vendors. This is an issue that needs to be addressed later as part of the RFP process.
said that the campuses are also starting to assess the duplication of serials
across the system, focusing initially on serials with annual costs over
$500. The Task Force has thoroughly
discussed and investigated the OCLC Collection Assessment Service. At this time they are still recommending that
CUWL defer buying this product because of cost and the related staffing costs
for the assessment. It may be
reconsidered later on. Even without the
OCLC product, it would be helpful just to have a snapshot of duplicate book
purchases for a recent sample year.
Huang asked about how inclusive the
Libraries participating in this project should plan to share what they learned about workflow with all the UW campuses, not just with their colleagues that participated.
8. Review of UW Libraries Budget Reduction Template (Goss)
Goss distributed a sample template with EauClaire’s
data. He clarified that S&E data is
not in the ALS, so he would need to collect that data from each campus. He would also need to define what S&E
includes. Explanatory information that
might be helpful could be included in the details. Frazier said that UW-Madison libraries have
not experienced significant cuts in recent years. A budget reduction template of this sort will
9. Resource Sharing Committee (Schneider)
had already covered the budget piece in her report. Schneider clarified that for non-returnables there will be no fee charged by WILS for
10. MetaLib Implementation Review – Moriarty and Malzacher
A revised version of the spreadsheet showing each campus’
progress was passed out. Moriarty commended Todd Digby,
Sue Dentinger and Curran Riley for working with Lower
to resolve problems. He thanked
campuses for working towards a certain level of consistency in their
implementations of MetaLib. Malzacher mentioned
the successful Metalib meeting in
11. Other Business
said the ITMC meeting date has been set, but it’s not a joint meeting. ITMC would like a joint meeting with CUWL in
the spring. Wilkinson said we need to
decide about a fall meeting and come up with some dates to give ITMC. Do we want an early November CUWL meeting? Frazier suggested yes, if we’re going to make
progress on our strategic plan. No
objections. Nov. 3-4 or 7-8 or 10-11
will be considered, with preference for Nov. 10-11, to provide more break from
Frazier said that
There was discussion about possible dates in April for the spring CUWL meeting. Rose suggested not committing time for a joint meeting with ITMC in the spring. Meachen expects a fair amount of IT news in the spring and suggested a brief combined general session. Docken is initiating discussions about Learn@UW/D2L’s relationship to repositories and learning objects. In April there should be an update for CUWL on the D2L/library services integration at Rochester Institute of Technology.
Baruth moved to adjourn the meeting and Malzacher seconded. Meeting was adjourned at .
Minutes submitted by Jean Gilbertson, CUWL Secretary