Monthly Archives: April 2011

Use cases

For ease of reference, this is a summary of all the use cases and contributing institutions. Click the institution name to get the relevant use case as a pdf.

Use case Institutions
Selection of a new e-journal Royal Holloway, University of London

University of Northumbria

Managing ‘conditions of access’ University of Wolverhampton
New e-book purchase/subscription – select platform The Open University
Renewal of a e-journal subscription University of Swansea
Cancellation of a journal title University of Salford

University of Warwick

University of Westminster

Library moves from institutional to consortium subscription University of Stirling
Move to e-only University of Southampton
Journal title moves between Publishers/ Publisher Changes Platform University of East Anglia
Budget and accounting for e-journals University of Edinburgh
Usage data University of the Creative Arts

University of East London

Discovery to Delivery University of Bournemouth
Manage Subscription Workflows University of Huddersfield

University of Salford

On the 25th February 2011 a use case meeting was held at the University of Salford. The documentation is available as a pdf, and the team from the University of Salford wrote a short summary of the meeting from their point of view.

The visit on the 25th February saw The University of Salford sitting on the other side of the fence.  Having visited 7 institutions in our role on the SCONUL ERM project, we felt reasonably well prepared for the meeting which was to take place.

David Kay was representing the SCONUL project and in attendance from Salford were Sue Hodges (Acting Head of Research and Academic Support), Regina Ferguson (Collections Manager), Angela Walker (Digital Library and Systems Manager), James Allen (Collection Management Team Leader), Jenny McNally (Digital Library and Systems Team Leader), Stella To (Acquisitions Officer) and Julie Berry (University Librarian) who was able to attend for the first part of the meeting.

We do not currently employ a commercial ERM, however we have developed an in-house database, which will allow us to store licences, view agreements and manage subscription renewal s.

We identified 3 use cases which we felt represented a lot of the everyday management of e-resources.  These were:

  • Cancellation of a journal title
  • Co-delivery of print and electronic
  • Move to e-only

It was agreed that we should look at the move to e-only and co-delivery of print and electronic together.

The discussion on the cancellation of a journal title centred on our regular journals review cycle, which has recently moved from a 3 year to an annual cycle.  We looked at how the process has been refined to extend the usage statistics to include counter reports as well as click through data from SFX.  We also examined the range of issues taken into consideration when carrying out the review.  This review takes place before the budget for the year is known, therefore a priority list is created which can then be used once the budget has been decided

The Co-delivery of print and electronic / Move to e-only proved an interesting discussion, with the current problems of discovery of print and electronic being highlighted.  It is hoped that the imminent introduction of a Resource Discovery Solution will alleviate the issues of students having to check both the OPAC and link resolver to find the full range of resources available.

While a move to e-only for journals is the preference, we noted issues surrounding post cancellation access, and the impact this has on the cancellation of print journals.  We have now introduced a policy of checking for secure, post-cancellation access either from the publisher or a digital preservation service such as LOCKSS or Portico.  If this is not available, then we do not make the move to e-only.

In the course of the discussions throughout the day, we also touched upon a range of other topics.  One topic of interest was how we might be able to match data from journal/resource subscriptions, either held locally or above-campus) to information on the modules to which they relate, which would be held in local, university systems.  Such a link would allow us to analyse not only usage data, and cost-per-use, but also cost-per-student and use-per-student.

Overall, the day, and the project as a whole, has given us the opportunity to not only discuss these matters amongst ourselves, but also have the advantage of hearing about and considering the range of practices and processes followed by other universities.

University of Bournemouth

Through a face to face meeting and a follow up telephone conference, a use case was developed with the Bournemouth University. The documentation is available as a pdf, and the team at Bournemouth wrote a short summary of the meeting from their point of view.

The use case meeting with Bournemouth University (BU) Library was held in two parts. Firstly at an ice-bound Bournemouth on 20th December 2010, attended by David Kay and Regina Ferguson from the project and David Ball from Bournemouth University, the remainder of the BU team absent due to closure of the University by snow. It was followed up by a telephone conference on 23rd February 2011 attended by David Kay from the project and David Ball, Chris Spencer and Stella Welsh from BU.

The discussions, revolved around Discovery to Delivery linked to moving to e-only, but had many dimensions, all highlighting BU’s commitment to providing the library resource needs of the University community in the most cost effective and efficient way whilst utilising the small library staff group to best effect.

BU Library’s strategy has always been to adopt a pragmatic approach to all procurement activity, questioning all work flow processes; utilising supplier systems and working with suppliers to establish best practice. At the same time BU Library has established good communication links with both the academic and student communities to ensure developments are in line with expectations.

Such a pragmatic approach sometimes conflicts with traditional library risk aversion. However, provided the process is founded on the strategic aims of the institution, is guided by feedback from the community and complies with all regulatory requirements, it ensures efficient and effective delivery of services with a very small staff structure: BU provides a quality service at just 62% of the SCONUL mean expenditure per FTE student.

BU Library spends 74% of its resources budget on e-resources and so it would seem a logical step to procure an ERM. BU Library has been considering ERM systems for some time and has been involved in the beta testing of one commercial product. If the ERM was relatively inexpensive, could be integrated easily into the Library Management System and other key business systems, a business case could be successfully submitted.

However, in the current economic climate where investment needs to demonstrate significant ongoing savings (especially in staff budgets) there remains a concern over the likely return on investment given that the BU Library staff structure is already small as a result of previously introduced work flow efficiencies. The ERM needs to be future proofed, be able to manage all life cycle aspects of current formats and types of e-resources and be of a flexible design to handle future formats and procurement models and ensure we don’t face the current scenario of monolithic systems with limited integration capacity repeated in the future.

BU Library remains committed to the idea of shared services that will help minimise duplication of effort across institutions and ultimately share the cost and effort in developing the services in areas and workflows common to the sector.

We especially look forward to investigating the possibilities of replacing the commercial LMS with an open-source, shared-service alternative.

University of Westminster

On the 23rd February 2011 a use case meeting was held at the University of Westminster. The documentation is available as a pdf, and Pat Barclay from the University of Westminster wrote a short summary of the meeting from her point of view.

Members of the Collection Management team met with Owen and Ken on 23rd February 2011. Present for the discussion were Pat Barclay (E-Services Manager), Lyn Bowen (Senior Metadata Librarian) , Catrin Williams (E-Services Developer),  Yeser Street (Senior Collections Assistant), Marion Van Elzelingen (Collections Assistant),and Ann Munn (Systems Development Officer) .  When setting up a 3 hour meeting I thought this would be more than adequate but we could have talked for a lot longer!  In our busy schedules we often don’t find time to sit down and talk about how/why we do things so this proved very valuable. Owen and Ken are both expert at challenging why you do things so it made us think/question some of our work practices.

Over the course of our workshop we discussed general issues such as creation of a centralized Collection management team and the efficiencies this has achieved- previously 4 sites managed their own serials purchases.  We all identified the time consuming nature of this work and would welcome any ‘Above Campus’ solutions to save us time.

Prior to the meeting we identified 4 topics for discussion :

  • Subscription to a new e-journal- (b) Finalise license
  • Cancellation of a journal title
  • Publisher changes platform
  • Archival access

After some general discussion of all these areas, we decide to focus on ‘cancellation of a journal title’. Analysing the workflow in detail made us realise why the process is so complex and time consuming. The inability to get consistent/reliable data at an appropriate time is one of the key difficulties in this process and it’s something all libraries are grappling with.  This came up more than once in our discussions!  Communication with agents/suppliers takes up a lot of staff time, as does checking that the correct access has been granted post-cancellation.

It was a useful and interesting meeting with very good facilitators and gave us much to think about.  Being challenged on the work we do is good but it also highlighted we have some dedicated staff working hard to deal with this complex environment.