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

University of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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, updates  campus forums, facilitated group processes

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

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

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

NGTS online