The University of California Next-Generation Technical Services Initiative Brian E. C. Schottlaender The Audrey Geisel University Librarian, UC San Diego ALA Midwinter Meeting Boston, 16 January 2010

C OMMUNITY T HINKING “Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California” (December 2005) “ We need to look seriously at opportunities to centralize and/or better coordinate services and data, while maintaining appropriate local control, as a way of reducing effort and complexity and of redirecting resources to focus on improving the user experience.” “A White Paper on the Future of Cataloging at Indiana University” (January 2006) “ Better technological support for the cataloging process will assist catalogers in removing redundancies among and within institutions, allowing cataloging professionals to spend more time performing expert tasks.” 2

C OMMUNITY T HINKING “The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools” a.k.a. “The Calhoun Report” prepared for LC (March 2006) “… implementation issues associated with … innovation and cost reduction … include some technical but mostly organizational hurdles. To succeed … research libraries will need to master organizational change management and achieve unprecedented levels of collaboration with peers and external partners. “On the Record: Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control” (January 2008) final.pdf “Although cataloging will and must continue to play a key role in bibliographic control, today there are many other sources of data that can and must be used to organize and provide access to the information universe. To take advantage of these sources, it is necessary to view bibliographic control as a distributed activity, not a centralized one.”

C OMMUNITY T HINKING “No Brief Candle” (August 2008) “ The current model of the library as a stand-alone service provider to the university is obsolescent.” “The Extended Library Enterprise: Collaborative Technical Services & Shared Staffing” (February 2009) action/collaborative_ts/extended_library_enterprise_final.pdf “It is almost impossible to overstate the cultural shift that must occur for any of these ideas to really work.” “Next ‐ Generation Technical Services: Changing How We Provide Technical Services for the University of California Libraries — Scope Statement” (April 2009) scope_10april2009.pdf “Radically new approaches to these operations are now called for in order to ensure that they are not only maximally efficient, but also transformatively effective.”

E NVIRONMENTAL C ONDITIONS Stored print/Shared print/Persistent print Digitization Mass digitization – Internet Archive – Google Digital preservation: Portico, UC3, etc. HathiTrust Repository auditing mechanisms – TRAC: Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification – DRAMBORA: Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment

E NVIRONMENTAL C ONDITIONS Yin and Yang Trust and Formalized Trust Scale and Web-scale The Meltdown: – Funding – Space

G UIDING P RINCIPLES Technical services support and provide infrastructure for the development and management of the UC library collections. Technical services provide broad access to and facilitate discovery of collections in support of the mission of the University. UC Libraries will build a culture of continuous improvement of services applied to scholarly content. UC Libraries seek to organize technical services and develop standards of practice to achieve efficiencies and attend to a broader scope of content.

V ALUES Make content easy to find and use Speed processing throughout all technical services functions Eliminate redundant work Free up resources in order to focus cataloging and other metadata description on unique resources Start with existing basic metadata from all available sources Allow for continuous improvements to basic metadata including from the world beyond the UC Libraries: i.e., our users, expert communities, vendors, and other libraries View technical services as a single system ‐ wide enterprise Define success in terms of the user’s ability to easily find and use relevant content

O BJECTIVES “… from shared cataloging to integrated cataloging : a vision in which the system adopts a single set of standards and policies, eliminates duplication of effort and local variation in practice, and leverages access to language and subject expertise in order to create a single copy of a bibliographic record for use by the entire system.” “… seek to articulate similarly broad visions that will engage and challenge the expertise of all of our libraries’ staffs in acquisitions, cataloging, metadata, digitization, and preservation.”

G OALS Streamline content lifecycle management and develop infrastructure to create a virtual metadata resource that aggregates metadata generated as content is acquired Expose the aggregated, virtual metadata resource to the broadest number of discovery pathways so that users can find and use content easily Enable continuous enhancement of the virtual metadata resource by librarians, scholars, and third parties

I NFORMATION T YPES Commonly ‐ held Content in Roman Scripts Commonly ‐ held Content in non ‐ Roman Scripts UC Unique Collections 21 st Century Emerging Resources

I NFORMATION T YPES Commonly ‐ held Content in Roman Scripts Commonly ‐ held Content in non ‐ Roman Scripts – Print content – Licensed digital content – Born-digital content – Reformatted content (digitized, mass digitized, microfilmed) – Audio-visual content – Images UC Unique Collections – Special Collections – Archives – Theses and dissertations – UC scholarship – Images 21 st Century Emerging Resources – Harvested websites and resources (“Web at Risk”) – Scholarly websites – Blogs and other integrating resources – Maps – GIS – Datasets

NGTS P ROCESS Cross ‐ functional Working Groups appointed in September 2009, charged with designing appropriate workflow and lifecycle models for each content type with a view toward improving efficiency, optimizing Next-Generation Melvyl functionality, and enhancing the user experience. Each model to address processes for selection, acquisition, cataloging, and preservation or reformatting (as needed), including possibilities for outsourcing some or all to third parties. Work proceeding in 2 phases – Query constituencies, Analyze current processes, Identify issues – Prioritization, Critical path analysis, Process reengineering

P HASE 1: I SSUES [ Infra]structures – Business & Finance – Technology – RLFs – Shared Cataloging Program Standards – Coordinated policy/standards/guidelines development/application for cataloging and archival processing – Determining what "good enough" means Tools – Shelf-Ready services – Vendor-supported cross-campus collection development – Non-Roman character support – Content creation/management utilities

P HASE 1: I SSUES Systemwide Approaches – Serials – Government Documents – Born-digital content – Data [curation] – eBooks – CD ROMs People – Non-MARC metadata expertise – Co-location of language expertise – More shared staff, Centralized vs. distributed centers of expertise, Mobile staff

P HASE 2: PAR* *Prioritize, Analyze, Reengineer Measures to be used in determining next steps will include an assessment of what changes will be the most transformative and result in: – the most cost savings – increased value to users