May 13, 1998 Meeting of CBB Libraries/IS Staff Group Notes

Introduction

The first CBB all-staff Library and Computing Services meeting was held on May 13, 1998. During the afternoon sessions, attendees broke up into six discussion groups affording staff in similar positions an opportunity to talk informally, discuss the implications of the CBB projects on their work and to brainstorm with CBB colleagues on possible future collaborative projects and information sharing. The following text are summaries of each of these breakout sessions as recorded by each group's note taker.

Special Collections Group Meeting

• The need to build a better understanding of the special requirements of many rare and unique materials and our need to communicate these requirements better. In many cases materials will not be loaned or borrowed but moving students between facilities will meet CBB goal to provide enhanced access.
• Facilitate document delivery of Special Collections materials with digital technology so that content can be delivered via Internet/Web.
• Use the Web and WebPac to provide enhanced access through links to archival descriptions.
• The need for better/increased resources, both staff and equipment/technology. Enhanced access is labor intensive.
• The need for increased IS support on all campuses to support technical needs of Special Collections/archival materials. The need for built-in technical assistance in order to create enhanced access to rare and unique materials more efficiently. We know what we need to do, but we don't necessarily know how to do it.
• The possibility of developing a shared exhibit Web site. Identify concentration of materials which we share and build comprehensive collection guide/exhibit which will also support curriculum/faculty interest. Some ideas:
  1. abolitionist materials
  2. civil rights materials
  3. 19th century religious materials
  4. 19th century student newspapers /catalogues / etc.

• The need to communicate with and gain broader support of faculty to increase curricular use of materials, and the need to support this interest via enhanced access.
• Plans for proposing a CBB Spec Coll project to begin digitizing student newspapers. Newspapers heavily used by wide constituency - students, administration, faculty for courses, alumni. Enhanced access would include full-text searching thereby resolving significant problem of indexing.

CBB Circulation Group Meeting

• Francis began the meeting by urging staff to ask questions about what they had heard in the presentations that morning. Do we have any questions about what we are trying to accomplish?
• Our biggest concern regards staff training. Circulation and public service staff are going to have to know what is going on, what our patrons can expect, and what they are allowed to do. Inevitably some education of our patrons falls to circulation staff and their student workers. It will be important to keep us informed of the upcoming changes and new policies. Many of the circulation staff at the meeting had heard very little of the new changes coming. A suggestion was to have the User Education Group use the Circulation staff as test patrons, or guinea pigs.
• User Education: Perhaps we could incorporate the soon-to-be decided CBB logo into a poster to be used at each library that would introduce the new WebPac. The Web itself can have introductory information incorporated into its design.
• We should have consistent ways of collecting user comments. We could use forms on the Web to collect comments, perhaps the same forms that users fill out, along the same idea as a customer comment card.
• We will have to find a way to collect statistics for the requestor function. Supposedly there is a way III can do this, although no one at this group knew how.
• Communication: We should have a more formal meeting after we have had a semester to implement the requestor function. At that time we can evaluate the process and work on better ways of getting the work done. At this meeting we should also work together on issues common to all circulation departments: student training and stack maintenance.
• Other questions and comments were as follows:
  • There was a question about how the requestor function worked. Does it place a hold on the book at the title level? The answer: No. Title level holds didn't work with our system. There are problems with multi-volume sets. Also, title level holds don't check the loan rule.
  • Summer will be a good time to test the requestor system. The implementation committee will have to get an outline or procedure manual together for the three libraries to work from.
  • Patron loads will be a problem. We have to get the patron load dates to coincide at each institution. Perhaps someday we will get to the point where patron loads will be done seamlessly and continuously. We'll also have to figure out how to deal with each institutions different academic schedule.
  • We are working on how we will clean up or reconcile bills.
  • There was reassurance that MDS handles the delivery very well. They have never lost a book for us. And although we cant get weekend service from them, we can try to compensate by having more students work on Mondays, when the load will be particularly heavy.
  • Colby noted that the changes that the requestor function will bring will be less for them because their circulation department has been handling this work all along. Bates and Bowdoin may have more of an adjustment. At any rate, our patrons will be requesting more materials once they see they can do it for themselves.
  • Bates commented that our faculty may have to adjust to the idea of not having video and audio material at their immediate disposal. They may have to plan ahead and get material on reserve early.
  • What color should the wrappers be? Should they all have the same logo but be different colors?

Reference Group Meeting

• WebPac:
  • A uniform Web page explaining requestor function basics to be shared by the 3. ( by Sept. 1)
  • An interactive tutorial on using WebPac (sometime 1st semester)
  • Some way to explain restricted access to electronic resources found in each others' WebPac (i.e. journals that one subscribes to but not others).
• Training issues:
  • Public service staff need to be trained in a consistent way to answer questions relating to the WebPac and requester function. We suggest that early in the summer each institution choose a trainer and these individuals devise a joint program to be used at each institution.
  • We feel the reference/public service staffs combined are large enough to justify bringing workshops and speakers to Maine for training. Areas to be covered might include effective use of electronic classrooms, teaching use of electronic resources etc.
• Sharing the labor:
  • Staff should collaborate on creating documentation for electronic resources. Release time and technical support from the Mellon grant should be incorporated into this.
  • Discussion of faculty support was put off for the moment.
  • To effectively accomplish all this we recommend that a standing reference group be formed; maybe two librarians from each institution .

Technical Services Group Meeting

1. Specific items for Tech Services:
   • Is requester ILL or Circulation? All three schools decided circulation department.
   • Have people been thinking about cataloging electronic resources?
   • Link checking. III has no answer. There are utilities, but they take time.
   • Limit function issues for material type. Coding was different at the schools for the b codes, so simultaneous search doesn't work -maybe in September.
   • Importance of using MARC coding and standards, not making up our own.
2. Broader issues that impact Technical Services:
   • Collection development policies for electronic resources- What to catalog is a collection development issues, rather than catalog dept.
   • Decision. Role of library catalog.
   • Genre headings and their use in the catalog.
   • question on what is status of off-site storage, which items, weeding, etc.
   • Collaboration on Serial sets (Govt Docs)
   • Collection development issues
   • Shared language materials processing
   • approval items
   • retention policies (19th c periodical titles)
3. CBB communication for Tech Service Departments:
   • How can we develop strong lines of communication between departments?
   • Methods of communication:
     • Listserv
     • Video-conferencing
     • e-mail
     • visits to other libraries
     • working group for specific issues
   • What types of information would you like to share with each other ?:
   • Scat tables
     • Gov doc coordinator
     • Work practices
     • Differences in cataloging practices
   • Procedures on the Web
   • Summary holding statements
     • Non-MARC check-in records to MARC check-in records
     • Marcive tape loads
     • Buying cataloging for microfiche sets
   • CBB serials committee has been put on hold. It should become active again (work with CBB Collection Development and Electronic Collection group.
4. Topics/Speakers ideas
   • Metadata
   • Cataloging electronic resources
   • re-indexing in III
   • electronic resources-coordinate text in 856 not Z

   Inter-Library Loan Group Meeting

   Implications of CBB:

   • Loan rules: handled mostly by implementation group
   • Loan periods need to be understood by ILL; issue of planning ahead
   • Last minute support provided by CBB?
   • Concerns that patrons may be confused by loan periods and length of loans will ILL differ from CBB?
   • All items now through CBB except periodicals.
   • Faculty will need to be informed of new rules; circulation committee
   • Reference materials not included in requester function
   • ILL will only deal with non-returnables except in special circumstances.
   • Serial sets will most likely be handled by ref
   • In-house use:
     • Bates - special wraps, separate shelving, not in catalog
     • Bowdoin - kept separately in ILL office. Records tagged in catalog
     • Colby - kept in office; micromedia at circ.
   • Discussed ways to monitor ILL In-house use stuff
     • restricted area?
     • Supervised?
     • Hold ID
     • Stamp date/day of use?
     • Sign when done?
   • Increasing numbers of electronic requests
   • track increasing workload.
   • How to track what is sent where
   • generate list in triplicate
   • Will WebPac have stats program for ILL?
   • Bowdoin - CLIO?
   • Bates/Colby - paper counting.
   • How often/how long do we keep stats.
   • Now: submissions by Web e-mail
   • User Ed - educate how to read records and when to request item (e.g.: serial records)
   • Always check CBB holdings before submitting ILL
   • Common elements of student training - searching techniques
   • video conferencing for OCLC searching
   • collaborative teaching
   • Discussed and determined more meeting would be beneficial.
   • Increased equipment needs must be addressed
   • Staffing?

   IT/IS/AV Group Meeting:

   Discussion of shared resources in IT:

   • shared documentation
   • Jeff Ericksen suggested color-coded motifs to designate CBB areas
   • Jim Hart suggested we investigate groupware to facilitate collaboration/common tools.
   • Lou Tremante reported that a priority for Bowdoin in the next year will be to choose groupware.
   • Linda Spugnardi suggested a group convene to discuss this issue.
   • Linda Spugnardi explained the sources of funding for stipends also for faculty liaison and for staff supporting Mellon II projects.
   • Lou Tremante and Linda Spugnardi brought up the issue of computer literacy/teaching.
   • Linda circulated document outlining computing skills
   • Paul Gregoire suggested similar document be created for Video Conferencing
   • Paul and Peg Schultz suggested a SL document for each campus
   • Lou pointed out that the level of tolerance of failure may be lower for users than for us
   • Lou Tremante agreed to send feedback from IT/planning meeting to Ray and Linda.