Ontario Colleges eBook Consortium Project / Analysis Phase status report
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•627 vistas
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (12)
Similar a Ontario Colleges eBook Consortium Project / Analysis Phase status report
Similar a Ontario Colleges eBook Consortium Project / Analysis Phase status report (20)
Más de Thomas Guignard
Más de Thomas Guignard (6)
Último
Último (20)
Ontario Colleges eBook Consortium Project / Analysis Phase status report
- 1. John Shewfelt Manager, Library Operations, Fleming College Thomas Guignard eBook Project Manager, Ontario Colleges Library Service OLA Super conference, January 31, 2014
- 2. 24 colleges
- 4. Statistics? Metadata ? Where do I start ? PDA ?
- 7. licensing + acquisition management vendors products colleges Trials Negotiation Acquisition Invoicing Support Monitoring Marketing Consortium
- 8. metadata management MARC/RDA metadata sources import export college catalogues & discovery layers conversion APIs Repository Consortium
- 9. Discovery layers Item description (MARC) Access information e.g. Access from 2011-04-06 2012-06-01 to 2015-04-05 2015-05-30 Record management Repository e.g. • Edit history • Link to license URL … …
- 10. Content 2013 2014 2015 2016 … Existing collection funding request Infrastructure analysis implementation project licensing management metadata management repository now …
Notas del editor
- Introduction – who we are + tie-in with the Novanet presentation
- Context24 collegesHLLROCLS – provides services to all colleges, e.g. management of electronic resources, union catalogue that is currently evolving into a digital repository, manages ILS consortium for a subset of the colleges, video on demand infrastructure, etc.
- Sensing issues within its members, HLLR thinking of eBooks, realizing challengeCommissioned a study in 2011Results -> you should establish a consortium, handle all aspects of eBooks as a group. Not only content, also how you acquire and manage them.With the help of OCLS, HLLR set up a project, sought and received funding for analysing the situation further and putting together a proposal for a consortium solution. The results of this analysis and the proposed consortium structure are what we’re presenting here today.
- Current situation: Large difference in content offered by colleges.This is OK, emphasis on different subjects, different population, etc.BUT not all colleges are created equal. Large differences in staffing, experience, budgets.Some colleges have long experience, lots of collections, are now thinking of moving from large packages to granular title selection, PDA, etc.Others only have basic coverage, if any. Not sure which collection to start with.Both share the same concerns about high maintenance issue of eBooks. Metadata handling is costly, some don’t have the resources to invest in proper cataloguing, even the larger ones would prefer to invest staff time in other projects.Conclusion, colleges need a plan
- We propose the colleges establish a core collection, on top of which college-specific collections can be builtHybrid:Core collectionGreater buying powerLower pricesReduced duplicate workEquity of access+College-specific collectionsExisting collectionsSubject/language specificity FlexibilityGoals:Incentive (to help “sleepy” colleges move towards inevitable e)Acquisition strategyHard savings through collaborative purchase
- Good eBook collection for colleges = content + infrastructureThis proposal was the result of the yearlong analysis. Input from many of the colleges, very important to gather their different needs and sensibilities.- Students and faculty were surveyed, librarians were interviewed. - Environmental scanAlso gathered info about existing consortia, how other groups of libraries handled this, able to extract similarities and differences.Financial aspects had to be explored as well, establish BASELINE, cost services, calculate potential savingsTools/services available and under development were assessed through a Request for Information process
- INFRASTRUCTURE – licensing and acquisition managementNeed to extend current practices for eResourcessystematic evaluation, trial, decision of available productsprice negotiation as a groupsystematic handling of licenses, invoices, renewals, etc. (instead of ad-hoc)value-added: systematic collection of usage statistics, reporting back to colleges, inform collection development strategytraining for staffconcerted marketing strategyCurrent structure (OCLS) able to do most of it so far, however will soon exceed capacityWe propose to formalise a sustainable structure
- INFRASTRUCTURE – metadata management24 colleges = 24 catalogues1 new package of eBooks or 1 update in a package (e.g. Safari) = 24 institutions downloading MARC records, editing them, loading them in catalogue, troubleshootingThis is not efficient and only colleges with enough staff can afford itWe propose a common solutionRepository as a holding tank for MARC recordsNew/updated records are edited only once for all colleges, stored in repository, available for all colleges to load into their cataloguesLong term: repository talks directly with discovery layers, local catalogues no longer necessary for eBooksParallel with ScholarsPortal – we don’t want to reinvent the wheel, SP currently rethinking strategy and might be open to Colleges joining. However one of the core services we plan to setup is metadata management, this is not done by SP
- Implementation plan:Currently requesting funding for implementationIf successful, implementation scheduled to start this FallDepending on HLLR and budget situation, commitment to core collections could start this SpringNew acq and management workflow could be operational next Spring (start of Fiscal 15-16)Repository live Summer 2015
- Next steps- current funding requestAcquisition strategy for colleges, aim $1M/year minimum after 5 years (1/3 of current colleges monographs acq budget)Funding request for implementation of common infrastructureConclusion, back to Novanet
- Thank all colleges who helped with the project. 30 people from most of the colleges participated to one degree or another.