Martha Hruska & Carol Ann HughesAugust and September 2009

Next Generation Technical ServicesRethinking Library Technical Services for the University of California

Next Gen Tech Services (NGTS) Context

Bibliographic Services Task Force Report 2005: next steps

UC Related Initiatives over the last 4 yearsCatalysts for ChangeNext Gen Tech Services ChargeNext Gen Tech Services Scope Next Gen Tech Services ProcessPossible Outcomes

BSTF Report 2005“Within Library workflows and systems too

much effort is going into maintaining and integrating a fragmented infrastructure. We need to look seriously at opportunities to centralize and/or better coordinate services and data, while maintaining appropriate local control, as a way of reducing effort and complexity and of redirecting resources to focus on improving the user experience.”

Adopting New Cataloging PracticesSupporting Continuous Improvement

BSTF Report: Next Steps

Rearchitect cataloging workflowSelect the appropriate metadata

schemeManually enrich metadata in important

areasAutomate Metadata CreationSupporting Continuous Improvement

UC Initiatives over the last 4 years+

CAMCIG Reports: California Electronic Documents Cataloging Pilot

ProjectBrainstorming Draft for CAMCIGMetadata Survey ResultsSingle-Separate Record Report to HOTSUsing OCLC As A Single Cataloging Tool HOTS

UC CONSER FunnelCDL/HOTS agreement to fund temporary SCP

Chinese catalogerSCP Scope Statement ReviewHOTS Cataloging Expertise SpreadsheetShared Print Projects CDL / CDC

Journals (Licensed journals, JSTOR, IEEE)CanadianaCDC Prospective Shared Print Monographs Task

Force

Catalysts for Change: Beyond Cataloging and Bibliographic Services

LC Final Report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Next-Generation MelvylChanging user expectationsMass Digitization

Hathi TrustWeb ArchivingExpose Hidden Collections Manage the life –cycle of born-digital and other

emerging formatsUC-wide and campus financial pressures

Next Gen Tech Services

Executive Team: charged by the University Librarians to guide the Steering Team, to make resource allocation and other higher‐level decisions, to provide progress reports to the University Librarians, and to develop needed policy for approval by the University Librarians.

Members: Bruce Miller, Chair (University

Librarian, UC Merced) Laine Farley (Executive

Director, CDL) Brian Schottlaender (University

Librarian, UCSD) Ginny Steel (University

Librarian, UCSC) Martha Hruska (UCSD, chair of

Steering Team)

Steering Team: charged to develop a framework for the next three to five years for Next Generation Technical Services for the UC Libraries. The Steering Team will:

Members:Martha Hruska , Chair (AUL

Collection Services, UCSD) Jim Dooley (Head, Collection

Services, UC Merced)Emily Stambaugh (Shared Print

Manager, CDL) Ivy Anderson (CDL) interim

Carol Hughes (AUL, Public Services, UC Irvine

Armanda Barone (Asst. Hd. Tech Services UC Berkeley)

NGTS: Charge

Develop a framework for the next three to five years for Next Generation Technical Services for the UC Libraries. The Steering Team will:address the broad transformative changes that will

move technical services to the network level and that will reap the benefits of collaborative technical services

identify areas of coordination and collaboration among the UC Libraries technical services operations

quickly implement identified “low‐hanging fruit” changes (with approval from the Executive Team)

NGTS Scope: Values & Guiding PrinciplesSpeed processingTechnical services as a system-wide, single

enterpriseStart with existing metadata that is “good

enough” from all available sourcesAllow for Continuous improvements to “good

enough” from the UC Libraries and beyond: expert communities, vendors, other libraries

Eliminate redundant workMake *all* the UC Collections easily found and

usedFocus cataloging and other metadata

description efforts on unique resources

User Environment

Library and Network Resources

Collection Management Environment

Commonly Held

(Roman Scripts)

Commonly Held (Non-

Roman Scripts)

UC Unique

Collections

21st Century

Resources

Metadata

Content

Get it

Manage it

Select it

Find it

Information Resource Types

1. Commonly Held Content in Roman Scripta. Licensed resourcesb. Print publicationsc. Reformatted content (digitized,

mass digitized, microfilmed)d. Audio-visual materialse. Imagesf. Born digital publications

2. Commonly Held Content in Non-Roman Scripta. Licensed resourcesb. Print publicationsc. Reformatted content (digitized,

mass digitized, microfilmed)d. Audio-visual materialse. Imagesf. Born digital publications

3. UC Unique Collectionsa. Special Collectionsb. Archivesc. Theses and dissertationsd. UC scholarshipe. Images

4. 21st Century Emerging Resourcesa. Harvested websites and

resources (Web at Risk)b. Scholarly websitesc. Blogs and other integrating

resourcesd. Mapse. GISf. Datasets

Task Group ChargesEach task force will be charged to develop 1-3

models

Each model must:Address processes for selection, acquisition,

cataloging, and preservation or reformatting, including possibilities for outsourcing

Incorporate the Values and Guiding Principles

Address options for system-wide organization of Technical Services

NGTS Process

Task Group members with mix of functional backgrounds

Consult just about all the UC stakeholders:HOTS, CAMCIG, ACIG, CDC, CDC Task Force on

Prospective Monograph Shared Print, SCP, PAG, HOSC, HOPS, UCAC, SOPAG….

Communications distributed as with Next Gen MelvylWeb site

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/

Email updatesCampus visits

NGTS Process (continued)

Proposed models vettedExplore workflow, policies and best

practices optionsIdentify and evaluate various

potential enablers, such as new tools and services, policies, and current initiatives

Phase 1 – July - Oct. 2009

Research existing best practices and current initiatives within UC and beyondInterview stakeholders and expertsIdentify organizational structuresCollect evidence for proposed solutions, including

throughput and discovery statisticsDescribe when collaborative approaches to technical

services ought to be considered/not consideredDescribe when/if a collaborative technical services

approach depends upon a shared UC collections approach

Consider vendor or other contracting solutions when appropriate

Phase 2 – Nov. 2009 – Feb. 2010

Outline proposed models

Include, as appropriate, selection, acquisition, cataloging, [electronic] resource management, harvesting, access services, digitization, preservation, or other relevant functions

Propose workflowsPropose policies and best practices neededPropose new tools, servicesPropose organizational structuresPropose funding modelsIdentify resource needs (including space requirements

if any)Propose governance modelsIdentify the collection development model best suited

to the technical service model

Phase 3 – March 2010 – May 2010

Analyze proposed models

Conduct a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats (including barriers to adoption) analysis (SWOT)

Propose an assessment approach that monitors throughput and human resource effort over time and provides evidence of improvement in users’ ability to easily find and use materials

Possible Outcomes

Redefine, break down the silos of TS functionsCollaborative approval plansCollaborative outsourcing and other vendor servicesImproved tools for system-wide acquisitions &

cataloging‘Shared Print in Place’ becomes norm rather than

exceptionLess redundant work Campuses focus on local

priorities More collections managed and accessible with less

total FTE

Follow monthly reports at the web site starting in September:http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/