The first part of this session from Clint Chamberlain from University of Texas libraries.
Clint talking about ‘lumpers’ vs ‘splitters’ in terms of people of categorising stuff:
- Lumpers: look for similarities between things and group them by what they have in common
- Splitters: look for differences and create new classifications for things that don’t fit neatly into already existing categories.
In this context we had ‘monographs’ and ‘serials’ – and then along cam e-resources – familar, yet wildly different in some ways. Require different skills and processes, and difficult to integrate into existing workflows.
E-Journals make print journals look simple!
As we start relying on e-resources more exclusively, and we see reduction in staffing, we need to bring workflows together to work more efficiently.
At UT Libraries, Clint describes acquisitions:
- Library Assistants handle
- Ordering
- Receiving
- Invoicing
- etc
- 3 librarian who do a little bit of everything (including Clint)
- more complex orders
- licensing
- metadata coordinator – works with link resolver and other systems
At UT, they have a form called SMEAR – Serial, Monographic and E-Resource Action Request form. This covers every type of action related to all these resources. Also alongside this they have a ‘TAP’ team (Troubleshooting Access Problems) (includes phone contact for immediate response).
SMEAR/TAP is a single point of contact for all issues – the ‘end user’ (in this case usually a member of library staff) doesn’t have to do any analysis of the problem. Because a single cohesive team, with significant overlap between staff responsibilities, lots of shared knowledge.
For acquisition, the same form is used for any format, they use a subs agent where possible, license, setup and admin metadata setup is routed to appropriate person, and bib information routed to cataloging.
Clint saying that where there are unusual problems or issues, the workflow allows these to be picked out during the flow and sorted out, while all other normal items go straight through.
They use order record in teh library system to record all pertinent data, whether for e- or print. They have agreed standards for formatting notes to make them searchable.
When reporting problems, they have the ‘TAP’ form – they have just started trialling a system of ‘ticketing’ where each issue is given a ticket, and tickets are routed to the appropriate team, or staff member. Also the system allows tracking and reporting – so you can see all problems with a particular package or platform over a period of time.
Clint is identifying areas where they feel there is convergence, and where practice diverges:
- Convergence
- Selection
- Placing order
- Creating metadata
- …
- Divergence
- licensing
- claims
- …
Apologies -slide not very clear, so couldn’t get all this.
Clint mentioning SEESAU (Serial Experimental Electronic Subscriptions Access Utiltities) at the University of Georgia which proactively checks access. Clint noting that he doesn’t like it when the user notices a problem first. I sympathise with this, but I’m a bit unconvinced in the situation that Clint describes (reducing resources etc.) that this is something we need to look at. I’d argue there is a difference between print and electronic here – if you miss a print copy and don’t claim, you will probably never get it (very difficult to get if you notice it a year later) – this isn’t the case with electronic access.
Clint mentioning SERU (Share E-Resource Understanding) – I didn’t quite understand what this was, need to look it up – seems to be a NISO Initiative
At UT, they want to make ‘e-‘ team the norm, not the exception, with more cross-training so all staff can deal with the issues.
Clint saying that ‘one size does not fit all’ – we need to ‘lump’ where appropriate but ‘split’ when necessary – need to recognise that print and e are not the same. But we need to do all the ‘normal’ stuff (e and p) with the least possible effort and reserve our energy for the ‘problems’.
Q: Didn’t quite catch it – something about who assigns tickets?
A: E.g. with SFX, there is a supervisor who allocates, but small team – good comms the key
Q: Notes can be confusing. Note UT have standardised Notes in SMEAR – but how did they get it adopted by other staff?
A: Not all staff happy, but most have got used to it – you need to make sure . My own feeling is that you need to provide a compelling service, and if people see the benefit, and problems are resolved quickly, they will be happy.
Q: How has the budget structure/allocation changed?
A: Collection Management has developed funds to parallel serials funds. Actually one lump sum in reality, but split down by subject areas – so ‘Print Serials Chemistry’ and ‘E Serials Chemistry’ – so these are both drawing on the same lump of money, but allows differentiating. (UT is 70-80% e for serials at the moment)
Q: Do you accept every single request for new items regardless of cost?
A: Generally left up to the ‘bibliographers’ – who have responsibility for their budget – although they have to consult on some stuff (esp on subs). I suspect based on comments this morning that this will become more restrictive as monographs go e and possibly to subs model.