nast report attributes n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
NAST Report Attributes PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
NAST Report Attributes

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18
niel

NAST Report Attributes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

75 Views
Download Presentation
NAST Report Attributes
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. NASTReport Attributes ALA Midwinter 2007 Meeting January 21, 2007 David Millikin Product Manager, Library Logistics OCLC david_millikin@oclc.org

  2. Report Attributes – Agenda • Objectives • Methodology • Discussion Group Findings • Storage Facilities Overview • Report Attributes Desired • Attributes Needing Further Discussion • “Nice to Have’s” • Alternative Report Uses • Next Steps

  3. Objectives • Test usefulness of a report with potential users • Shared database of collections in storage • Offer tools and reports for comparing stored collections across institutions / groups • Libraries could use this information to inform their collection development decision • Determine attributes desired on report

  4. Methodology • Two Discussion Groups • Current storage issues • Usefulness of report concept • Specific report attributes desired • Review Results • NAST report team • OCLC Collection Analysis, Market & Data Analysis • This advisory group

  5. Methodology – Discussion Groups • First Group: Members of libraries who are very familiar with discussions • University of California • California Digital Library • Library of Congress • The Ohio State University • Vanderbilt University • Washington Research Library Consortium

  6. Methodology – Discussion Groups • Second Group: Members of libraries who have not participated in discussions • Boston College • University of Guelph • Purdue University • University of Texas at Austin • University of Washington

  7. Methodology – Review Results • NAST report team • Melissa Trevvett, Paul Gherman, Constance Malpas, Glenda Lammers • Ensure progress & preview findings • OCLC Collection Analysis, Market & Data Analysis • Glenda Lammers, Rob Ross, Janet Hawk, Joanne Cantrell • Review discussion group findings • Confirm attributes identified are detailed enough to take action

  8. Methodology – Review Results • This advisory group • Review report attributes • Discuss questionable attributes • Confirm next steps

  9. Discussion Group Findings – Facilities • Common Findings • All institutions interviewed have stored collections • All institutions circulate stored collections • Exceptions: Photos, Special, Rare Collections • Storage facilities are nearing capacity • Most have plans for increase of storage capacity • Storage initially filled without consistency in selecting items for storage

  10. Discussion Group Findings – Facilities • Disparate Findings • Facility Layout / Design • Environmental Conditions of Facilities • Weeding Practices of Facilities • Methods of Addressing Space Limitations

  11. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Institutions employ various techniques to make weeding / collection decisions • Benchmarking • Circulation Statistics • Item Age, Condition • Availability as e-Content (e-Journals; e-Books less frequent) • Preservation Goals • Report would be useful that draws from other institutions’ collection data for weeding and/or collection decision-making

  12. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Report Attributes Desired • Physical Location / Ownership of Stored Items • Age of Stored Items • Item is in a Special Collection • Condition of Storage Facilities • Physical Condition of Stored Items • Number of Stored Items • Ability to Export Report to Spreadsheet

  13. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Report Attributes Desired (Policies) • Knowledge of: • Institutions that don’t weed • Formalized lending, weeding & retention policies • Preservation policies • Last-copy policies • Circulation Availability: • Circulation policies (Does the item circulate?) • Lending policies (How quickly will I receive item I requested; how long will I have the item?)

  14. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Report attributes needing further discussion • Number of Copies per Institution • Physical Location of Copies within an Institution • Second Group felt distinction that an item is in Storage versus regular circulating collection is not needed • If it exists within partner’s circulation, assume accessibility to the item • Knowledge of Circulation Frequency (low-circulating items)

  15. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Report “Nice to Have’s” • Knowledge of other institutions’ collection interests • Geographic proximity of other institution • Flag when an item exists in few institutions (rarity) • Scheduled reporting • Consortium-centric reports • Ensure copy preservation within a consortium • Consortial lending agreements • Extra-consortial reports • Preferred partners registry to inform reports

  16. Discussion Group Findings – Report • Alternative Report Uses • Retention & preservation decisions • Collection development (possibly via integration with ILL policies registry) • Inform other institutions about holdings to increase usage of stored collections

  17. Next Steps • Confirm questionable report attributes • Identify preliminary steps / groundwork of data / databases needed

  18. THANK YOU!