Next Generation Technical Services

1. Next Generation Technical Services Rethinking Library Technical Services for the University of California R Bruce Miller

2. University of California

3. One University, One Library Davis Berkeley San Francisco CDL Merced Santa Cruz 800 km Santa Barbara Riverside Los Angeles Irvine San Diego

4. Catalysts for change • Next-Generation Melvyl • mandates to change acquisitions practice, cataloging policies, processes, book and subscription vendor relationships • overwhelming amount of digital information • mass digitization, web archiving, hidden collections, lifecycle data curation • radically declining fiscal resources

5. Why NGTS? • support Next Generation Melvyl (NGM) • next step in strategic plan • improve technical services integration with NGM • build on past collaborative successes • e.g., Shared Cataloging Program and CDL Acquisitions • leverage scarce staff expertise within UC • expand staff expertise beyond MARC formats • increase capacity for new projects

6. Goals • speed processing and minimize delay in access • ensure that all UC collections are easily found and used • expand and enhance collection management with fewer FTE • enable local library focus on local priorities

7. Vision: specific • create a single copy of a bibliographic record for use by the entire system • adopt a single set of standards and policies • eliminate duplication of effort and local variation in practice

8. Vision: broad • leverage language and subject expertise • engage and challenge all staff in acquisitions, cataloging, metadata, digitization, and preservation

9. Fundamental strategies • move technical services to network level • from shared data to integrated • create 3 to 5 year framework for NGTS for UC • seek broad transformative changes • implement quickly wherever possible

10. Specific strategies • view all of technical services as system-wide, single enterprise • eliminate redundant work • focus original cataloging and metadata description on unique resources • accept “Good Enough” as a foundation • start: existing metadata • from all available sources • then: continuous improvement • from expert communities, vendors, other libraries • collaborative approval plans, outsourcing, vendor services

11. NGTS Organization • Executive Team • Steering Team • Resource Teams • Commonly-held Content in Roman Script • Commonly-held Content in Non-Roman Script • UC Unique Collections • 21st Century Emerging Resources

12. NGTS Executive Team • charged by University Librarians • very important • guide Steering Team • make resource allocation and other high‐level decisions • develop needed policy for approval by the University Librarians

13. NGTS Steering Team • develop framework for next three to five years • propose broad transformative changes to move technical services to the network level • identify areas of coordination and collaboration • quickly implement “low‐hanging fruit” changes (with approval from the Executive Team)

14. NGTS Resource Teams • Commonly Held Content in Roman Script • Licensed resources • Print publications • Reformatted: digitized, microfilmed • Audio-visual materials • Images • Born digital publications • UC Unique Collections • Special Collections • Archives • Theses and dissertations • UC scholarship • Images • Commonly Held Content in Non-Roman Script • Licensed resources • Print publications • Reformatted: digitized, microfilmed • Audio-visual materials • Images • Born digital publications • 21st Century Emerging Resources • Harvested websites and resources • Scholarly websites • Blogs and integrating resources • Maps • GIS • Datasets

15. NGTS Resource Teams charge • engage stakeholders • research best practices • develop 1 to 3 models for transformative change • include processes for selection, acquisition, cataloging, preservation, reformatting • assess outsourcing • include options for system-wide organization of technical services

16. NGTS Process • breadth and depth of expertise on all teams • exhaustive consultation • ULs, SOPAG, CDC, HOPS, HOTS, LTAG, RSC, SCO, CAMCIG, ACIG, SCP, PAG, HOSC, UCAC … • communicate, communicate, communicate • web site and wiki • listservs, email updates • campus forums, facilitated group processes

17. Phase 1: July-Oct 2009 • research existing best practices and current initiatives within UC and beyond • interview stakeholders and experts • identify organizational structures • collect evidence for proposed solutions, including throughput and discovery statistics • describe when collaborative approaches to technical services ought to be considered/not considered • describe when/if a collaborative technical services approach depends upon a shared UC collections approach • consider vendor or other contracting solutions when appropriate

18. Phase 2: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010 • outline proposed models • include • selection, acquisition, cataloging, [electronic] resource management, harvesting, access services, digitization, preservation, or other relevant functions • propose • workflows, policies and best practices needed, new tools, services, organizational structures, funding models, governance models • identify resource needs • money, staff, space • articulate collection development model to fit proposed technical service model

19. Phase 3: March – May 2010 • analyze proposed models • use Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats analysis (SWOT) • propose assessment process • monitor throughput and human resource cost over time • provide evidence of improvement in users’ ability to easily find and use materials

20. NGTS online http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/