Presentation on theme: "U KRR: the happy hydra UKSG Conference April 2011 Briefing Session."— Presentation transcript:
U KRR: the happy hydra UKSG Conference April 2011 Briefing Session
Looking at.. What.. Why.. How.. Bigger picture.. Over to you..
Why -1.. Key aims Protecting research information: 1 copy held at the BL - access copy 2 copies within UKRR members’ collections 100 km shelf space to be released: Collaborative collection management Members dispose material whilst retaining access
Why – 2.. Access to funds for de-duplication Premium document delivery service from British Library Capital cost savings - institutional level 100 km shelf space to be released
Why Duplication of holdings Estate pressures – increase in student nos. Alignment with institutional strategies Growth of e-sustainable archives Sharing paradigm: ‘JiT’ v ‘JiC’
Members University of Aberdeen Aberystwyth University Bodleian Libraries of Oxford University University of Birmingham Cardiff University Cambridge University Library Durham University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow Imperial College London Kings College London Kingston University University of Leeds University of Liverpool London School of Economics The University of Manchester Newcastle University University of Nottingham Northumbria University Open University Queen Mary, University of London University of Reading Royal Holloway, University of London University of Sheffield University of Southampton University of St Andrews University of Sussex University College London ULRLS
How -1 5 year scheme: monthly cycles: manage workflow achievable targets: 10km per cycle simplifies planning process
High level process SubmissionReviewDecision
Member completes template with details of the titles they wish to de-duplicate UKRR template is loaded into LARCH Validation, pre- processing step Scarcity checking, detailing number of copies held by UKRR members. Member sends samples of requested titles to BL Combing scarcity data and BL responses a retention status is assigned to the offered titles; Automatic matching of titles already offered to UKRR. Shelf checks are made against all newly offered titles. Samples of items not identified are requested. Offered items are checked against BL holdings, using samples from member if necessary. This is an iterative process and regular responses are provided. Process Level 0 Submission Review Decision Extra Universe UKRR Intra Universe UKRR Selection
Submission stage Bibliographic details: Local ref code / Shelf mark Title is a compulsory field ISSN or Publisher & Place of Publication Local holdings: Supplement details Gaps – detail any Shelf space – entered in metres and centimetres
Review stage Check to establish: If title has been offered previously If offering matches existing BL holding Whether the offered holdings needed at BL Triggers queries between BL & library
What does that really mean.. ISSN= ???? Title: Research reports Offered: Place of publication: ?? Publisher:?? Which means: Can’t match to previous offerings BL catalogue matches.... >1k matches
What is scarcity checking? The process by which parallel holdings are identified within UKRR Default status is ‘retain’ unless demonstrated otherwise 3 stage process: Automated title checking Manual matched to holdings level Finally matched to previous UKRR offered holdings
Linked Automated Register of Collaborative Holdings
Is it all worth while - value £3 million invested which has delivered £9 million savings
Is it all worth while - impact Photo courtesy of Chris Thomas of Kingston University
Is it all worth while - impact Library use “UK “UKRR has enabled the University of Glasgow Library to free up space to create a new social learning space which has been heavily used since it opened. This has contributed to a significant rise in the number of students and researchers using the Library” Susan Ashworth, Assistant Director, Research and Learning Support Services, University of Glasgow “ “
UKRR - virtuous circle???
Bigger picture.. Cultural change Data Sustainability
BP - cultural challenges Institutional buy in What is valuable? Library identity: Sharing paradigm: ‘JiT’ v ‘JiC’ What can safely be compromised? What contributes most to the core aims? Align strategic initiatives Advocacy never finishes
BP - data challenges Title v holdings information Inconsistency Non standardisation Incomplete Resource intensive Disclosure Logistical complexity
How can I express thee Take 1 journal:
Which is expressed.. Library has v. 16, no. 1 (Jan. 1993)-v. 22, no. 12 (Dec. 1999) Medical Library has v. 3, no. 2 (Feb. 1980)-v. 11, no. 12 (Dec. 1988), v. 15, no. 1 (Jan. 1992)-v. 27, no. 3 (Mar. 2004) xxx I Library has v. 13, no. 1 (Jan. 1990)-v. 30, no. 12 (Dec. 2007) Medical Library lacking v. 6, no. 7-8 (July-Aug. 1983); v. 18, no. 2 & 4 & (Feb. & Apr. & June-July & Dec ) Pers Vol. 1-29, Lacks Vol. 23(12); Vol. 24(2).
BP - sustainability HE – state of flux Business model in post Browne era What are the avoidance/opportunity costs? Risk management Evaluate need?
BP - Global challenge US: WEST regional storage trust OCLC - cloud collections HATHI/RECAP Europe: UK: RLUK-Collection Management Netherlands: Metamorfoze project Finland: Finnish National Repository Catalonia – GEPA Australia: CAVAL
Team UKRR Deborah Shorley - Head, UKRR Chris Brown - UKRR Data Coordinator Rachel Richards - BL UKRR Service Manager
UKRR Members’ Workshop February 2010 UKRR Key Do