University of California Libraries N EXT -G ENERATION T ECHNICAL S ERVICES : S YNCING U P IS H ARD T O D O Martha Hruska, UC San Diego ALA LLAMA SASS Meeting June 29, 2013

University of California Libraries Ten campuses and the California Digital Library (CDL) Eleven equal organizations with strong leaders working together voluntarily, with no mandate, as a collaborative collective Campus library funding cuts averaged 20% since These are not expected to be restored.

History of Collaboration  Melvyl catalog serves as the main access point to the collective UC library materials, integrating the holdings information of the UC libraries as if they were part of a single collection. In 2011, the UC Libraries moved the central catalog to the OCLC WorldCat Local interface.  Remote storage: Current holdings at the Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF) in Richmond and the Southern Regional Library Facility (SRLF) at UCLA total around 11 million volumes.  Shared licensed collections: The UC libraries act as a single entity in developing a shared collection of licensed digital materials, which significantly reduces the license cost and administrative overhead.  Shared Cataloging Program (SCP): Established in January 2000, the program catalogs the UC shared, CDL-licensed electronic resources for all of the UC campuses

Why NGTS? Estimated total backlogs: over 100,000 total items (POT Report) Estimated special collections and archives backlog: 13.5 miles (New Modes for Access report, Sept 2010) 2011: 1.8 trillion GB (1.8 ZB) of data created, more than doubling every 2 years (2011 IDC Digital Universe Study)

Why NGTS? “Success measured by... more resources made more discoverable, reduction in redundant work.”

History and Development  7/2008: Discussion paper on adopting UC-wide collaborative approaches to Technical Services  2009: Charge and Scope Statement  8/2009-2/2010: Phase 1: Research  3/ /2011 Phase 2: Recommendations & Priorities  2012 – Present Phase 3: Implementing & Transitioning Priorities

Some Guiding Concepts Transformation is an evolving, phased process, with occasional big leaps. Quick wins early and often are essential. Cost savings and cost avoidance are strategic. Continuous vetting happens throughout the process and at all levels to keep all informed; communication plans are key. Draw members from existing ‘All Campus Groups ‘ and leverage local experts for system-wide benefit. Continuously assess, revise, and adjust the NGTS implementation framework.

UC NGTS Aims Collaborative Collection Development Collaborative Technical Services Collaborative Digital Initiatives Financial and Technical Infrastructure for Collaboration

Collaborative Collection Development POT 7 - Develop a system-wide view of collections and transform collection development practices TASKACCOMPLISHED Recommend strategies for collecting traditional & non- traditional digital collections system-wide & multi-campus Pilot project(s )for POT 6 Q Pilot project(s) for POT1 Q Redefine the roles and responsibilities of UC bibliographers 80 page report Spring 2013 under review

Collaborative Technical Services POT 2 – Transform Cataloging Practice TASKACCOMPLISHED Implement consortial shelf-ready program Assessment report submitted, in pilot testing Spring/Summer 2013 Define UC Cataloging Record Standards Completed and serving as basis for collaborative cataloging work among campuses

Collaborative Technical Services POT 5 – Maximize the Effectiveness of Shared Cataloging TASKACCOMPLISHED Assess SCP record distributionCompleted, confirmed value of Shared Cataloging. Now a pilot to extend to include contributions from other campus(es) Evaluate SCP decision-making structure and priorities Recommendations adopted and implemented by Joint Steering Committee

Collaborative Technical Services POT 6 - Develop system-wide collections services staffing TASKACCOMPLISHED Existing shared staffing agreements and projects Inventoried and new models recommended Existing and needed tools in support of TS operations Inventoried and collaborative acquisitions now, i.e., Catalogers Desktop Eliminate current backlogsBacklogs inventoried. Audio CD’s now in process. Hawthorne effect for CJK? Identify models for shared collection support services with POT 7 These will be taken up in new UC Advisory Structure 2013

Collaborative Digital Initiatives TASKACCOMPLISHED Submit DAMS requirementsDefined Investigate DAMS software products: build vs acquire DAMS Development underway based on POT 1 LT reports POT 1 – Build the system-wide infrastructure to support digitized and born-digital collections

Collaborative Digital Initiatives TASKACCOMPLISHED Deploy Archivists’ Toolkit system- wide Completed - Adopted by HOSC, to be continued as CKG Define minimal collection record specification Included in UC Bibliographic Standards for Cooperative, Vendor, and Campus Backlog Cataloging, 2012 Implement More Product Less Process practices Successfully implemented by UCI. Documented in Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries POT 3 – Accelerate processing of archival and manuscript collections

Financial and Technical Infrastructure of Collaboration TASKACCOMPLISHED Deposit account systemImplemented and under ongoing assessment Library Financial Data Best Practices Adopted and in effect SPOT 2 – Develop a stable funding model for system-wide work Funding models for different collaborative scenarios identified and in process of adoption SPOT 3 – Monitor national developments in ERMS, Databases of Record, ILS Charge in process to assess campus interest and conduct updated environmental scan POT 4 – Simplify the recharge process

A New Model for Working Together

Project Management Working Group 8 members; 1 assigned per POT and overall PM (Joan Starr, CDL) Recognition of significant project management needs; NGTS multi- faceted, multi-phased Document, share resources and best practices for project management in UC Libraries

Communications Manager Develop communication plans to provide timely, consistent messaging Identify audience-specific messaging Engage, broaden participation; enhance our knowledge about next-generation services Photo courtesy of Bancroft Library

OBSTACLES & CHALLENGES  Lack of common technical infrastructure and overall willingness to develop or build one  Lack of common financial infrastructure  Lack of enough local incentives to collaborate vs continue to work at campus level  Budget and staff reductions that affected participation and travel for face to face meetings  Staff involvement due to staff reductions on campuses  Key stakeholders in current processes were asked to serve as change agents– some could be especially resistant to therole.  Limitations of the System in which we work, need to balance local priorities with what we can do collaboratively  Changes in libraries' leadership during the various phases of NGTS

Outcomes Tested assumptions  UC Shared Cataloging Program already highly efficient operation. Halting distribution of records would result in higher costs rather than assumed savings gained Identified gaps and areas of improvement  Communication processes; infrastructure Developed common vocabulary and standards of practice  “Schedule recharges;” efficient processing guidelines; UC cataloging standard

Evolving Outcomes  Processes and structural definitions for collaboration  Understanding, application of project management practices  Expanding upon collaborative models as well as commons standards and practices  Gained knowledge of operations, staffing, workflow at all of the campuses through inventories, surveys, interviews  Culture shift  Broadened the scope of technical services to include support for all types of collections and resources.  Process improvements for systemwide projects  Best practices  Project management templates and tools  Mechanism for tracking project assets during the projects.

Lessons Learned Sufficient planning early on is often key to a successful shared service Timely communication keeps everyone on the same page and helps clarify reporting mechanisms Stable funding is necessary to the viability of any shared service Commitment and support of library administrators

Questions?? With thanks to my NGTS Management Team colleagues:  Vicki Grahame, UC Irvine, Co-Chair  Susan Parker, UCLA  Elizabeth Cowell, UC Santa Cruz  Joan Starr, CDL, Project Management Team Chair  Emily Lin, UC Merced, Communications Manager See