Hi everybody, hope the summer is going well. I just returned from the Annual Conference in Anaheim and thought I’d share my notes. I welcome any comments or questions. I did attend other programs but mostly they didn’t offer much. One program I will mention was “Top Technology Trends”. It was really bad despite having so-called big names on the panel (e.g. Clifford Lynch). The speakers were mostly uninteresting and the format unimaginative (why would panelists talking about trends in technology not provide examples? Not one, not even a web site was used in this loong program). Also, the only technology they did incorporate was including two panelists on remote hook-ups (how cutting edge is that?); and even that wasn’t done well – the remote feeds either crashed or feedback drowned out their voices. All in all, if this is the current “trend in technology,” I’m embarrassed for librarians everywhere..

Program: TS Workflow for E-Content (6/29/08):

moderator Ruth Fischer (Consultant, R2)
Fischer attended a program (NASIG, i.e. from a serials viewpoint) that discussed E-Books and asked the question “when did E-Books become serials?
- E-Books are acquired via subscriptions, like serials, and are accessed by platforms and loaded into ILS like online serials; yet, they are individual titles and individually accessed and cataloged like monographs. In some libraries the E-Book workflow is split between serials and monographs units.

panelist Marty Jenkins (Wright St.)
- Wright St. Library is trying to mainstream E-Book selection.
- Jenkins’ believes the following issues with E-Books need to be addressed:
* E-Books have delayed publication — too often, acquisitions or selectors want to purchase an E-Book title but the only format available is print; bottom line, there is too much of a lag and Acquisitions folks want E-Book providers to work on this problem.
* With E-Books library staff have licenses and subscriptions to deal with — very much like online serial packages.
- Wright St. is part of a consortia that acquired a new licensed for over 14,000 E-Books (publisher=Springer), but the libraries want to load the bib records into their catalogs and not just have links to Springer site. (my note: UF has the same problem and this loading would help to avoid duplication – selectors/Acq. staff would find the record in Aleph and avoid ordering another copy – and just as importantly, it would make searching possible for patrons – an issue MSL librarians have raised time and time again).

panelist Rebecca Culbertson (Shared Cataloging Program, Calif. Digital Library —consortia cataloger):
- One problem with cataloging E-Books is there are more bib records than titles (showed an example of an E-Book title with several records on OCLC). One idea going forward is to have bib records that all follow the same procedure of using 300, 538, and 500 fields, also called the Provider-Neutral Model. (my note: I have a printed example of what Culbertson is doing at the CDL and will show it to Betsy Simpson)

panelist Alison Morin (EBL rep):
- Current E-Book initiatives at EBL:
* Demand-Driven is the new EBL sales program and basically here’s how it works: library patrons select the titles they want to read as E-Books and those selections are then purchased by the libraries. (my note: an intriguing idea that makes a lot of sense, since E-Books would only be ordered when patrons request them)
* Chapter linking/partial sales (my note: another good idea that makes sense; why should a library pay for an entire E-Book if the patron only wants a chapter or reference within it?)
* Future shift to centralized catalog record (my note: see Culbertson’s initiative at CDL)

panelist Chris Warnock (eBrary CEO/CTO?)
- Both Blackwell and YBP are taking steps that are improving E-Book selection and the cataloging aspects. (my note: didn’t elaborate on this and I will ask Robin at Blackwell’s if she knows what he is referring to..)
- Some libraries (e.g. Stanford Engineering Library) are ordering only E-Books and not print if print is all that is available; other libraries are ordering E-Books first and print only if E-Book is unavailable. (my note: this makes sense as well, perhaps the ordering process could be made simpler by ordering a title as an E-Book whether it is available or not, then wait until the E-Book is available; problem here would be if the title is never made into an E-Book, or if there is a long delay)

*****************
(more “my notes”: UF Libraries need to order more E-Books – perhaps starting next FY when the budget might improve – but not always through large packages. Ordering bulk packages is simple but the library is paying for titles that won’t be used, much like our bundled Big Deal online journal packages. In addition to packages, E-Books should be ordered increasingly in the future by the individual selection of titles. Thus, the E-Books initiative should include the following steps:
* Acquire E-Books on approval – we need to look into this again with Blackwell’s
* Acquire E-Books on forms – see above
* Push CM into individual title selection more often – esp. if E-Book providers can speed up the publication of the E-Book format
* Push Reference to order more E-Books – see above
* Promote E-Books and bump funding if possible
* E-Book version must be seen at time of selection by selectors – if the E-Book is available it must be made obvious to selectors and ready for ordering, with price and so on.

Other Questions/Ideas: Why couldn’t a vendor load all the E-Books they offer into a library catalog for patron searching; once the patrons find a book they want a connection is set and the book is purchased; or, a link from the library web site automatically searches the vendor site when a patron does a search, and if the book title is a match the title is purchased and downloaded; or, a series of questions regarding books (and serials for that matter) is given the patron. Let’s say the patron wanted a chapter, the system would connect to the vendor site and if the title is available the chapter would be downloaded for the patron – the library is then billed for the chapter.

Program: Removing the Fence: Merging Print and Electronic Serials Workflows (6/28/08)

panelist Clint Chamberlin (E-Resources Librarian, University of Texas)
- Chamberlin described the parallel processes between workflows for E-Books and print, and how UT uses one online request form (SMEAR) and one form for problems. Every area, whether serials – monographs – E-Resources, use a shared form and the email requests or problems are routed to the appropriate area after tickets are created and assigned. E-Mail message relies are always sent in response to the person who started the ticket request or problem description. ( my note: good idea, makes it easier for selectors and others to find one web page with one form to use; we should talk about this in a future Unit Manager meeting)
- Notes how UGA (Georgia) uses a system – SEESAU – which is a claiming method set up similar to serial check-in; every quarter, staff check the database title and links for access. (my note: we need to look into SEESAU and see if it’s efficient use of staff time, but supposedly they find many problems and broken links during this quarterly process)
- UT is expanding their E-Resources staff and decreasing the print serials staff; they are doing more cross-training between the two teams (print & E); Chamberlin advocates ‘lumping’ workflows together as much as possible (the majority of the time spent on tasks should be what dictates workflows and staffing)and follow the 80/20 rule whenever possible.
- CM still makes the selections and checks the budgets; all selections are supposedly routed through the heads of the research division for approval.

panelist Angie Ohler (Acquisitions Head, Univ. of Maryland)
Ohler makes the following recommendations:
- Each area or unit must work together, much as each dept in the library must work together.
- Set up workflows as much as possible to avoid special handling. The 80/20 rule should be followed in TS workflow and decision-making. (my note: 2nd straight panelist to quote the 80/20 rule, it must be true!)
- Like UT, Maryland checks its E-Resources links in a systematic method (Ohler, “we spend too much on E-Resources not to”). They’ve found that online journals (not the ones in databases) have either broken links or other link problems around 25% of the time. (my note: we should be doing more link checking, this is a high percentage)
- #1 rule is ‘don’t duplicate workflows’.
(my note: this was a pretty good program; the other panelists, Oliver Pesch from EBSCO and Georgia Fujikawa from Innovative, did not bring much to the discussion and made pitches for their products more than anything)