NAST Report Attributes

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!