KYVL Collections Work Group
Meeting Notes
Monday, October 18, 2004
WG Members
attending: Cecelia Tavares, Lynda
Short, Lois Schultz, Charles Brown, Susie Szasz Palmer, Victoria Koger, Sheila Stuckey, Jen Schatz, Ida Cornett,
Margaret Roberts, Mary Beth Garriott, Byran Carson, Martha Geier, Enid
Wohlstein, Sheree Williams, Carol Nutter
Representatives
for UK: Kate Seago and Shaun Livingston
Chair: Charlene Davis
After
introductions, their was a review of the mission of KYVU and the charge of the
Work Group as presented in the Draft of Ongoing Assessment of Institutional
Effectiveness of KBL, Collections Work Group 7-26-02.*
The current
family of databases was presented as a printout from the website. http://www.kyvl.org/html/about/databases/alldatabasedesc.shtml
There was a
discussion of the loss of EDRS from the EBSCO product line as of September 30,
2004. Discussions were initiated with
ERIC, EDRS, OCLC, and ProQuest about this issue. Little information has been forthcoming about this change. A visit to native ERIC on this day revealed
that the newest date qualifier available in the advance search was 2003. However, a search of ERIC in EBSCO netted
results including full text at ERIC with 2004 dates. There is no resolution to this as of yet.
Usage
statistics were distributed. These
statistics represent use through June 2004.
There are some issues with these numbers which are being pursued
including no use statistics for IIMP at all, missing Grolier numbers for April,
May and June, and suspiciously low number for ProQuest in 12/03 and EDRS
February through June 2003. Even with
these issues unresolved, the numbers of searches from SFY 2002-2003 (6,550,467)
to SFY 2003-2004 (8,644,864) increased by 32%.
These
statistics are extremely difficult to obtain and consolidate into a usable
form. Some of them are delivered to
websites which are then deleted so that the data is live on paper only. There is little consistency in the
deliverables. This reporting issue
needs to be addressed during the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
These
statistics present searches conducted in both the native interface and through
the KYVL Portal. It was pointed out
that the current KYVL Portal is SiteSearch.
As of December 2003, this OCLC product is became open source. As was pointed out, this can be a positive
thing if there is development staff available.
Because this is not the case at KYVL, an RFI was let for a federated
portal product with a link revolver.
They are moving forward with an RFP.
This project is in the capital plan as are the databases. However, there is no state budget.
Discussion
moved to the 2002 Survey and the Assessment Report.* This process revealed that the listing of databases* for user
reaction is an obviously flawed evaluation strategy as is evidenced by the
responses. It is easy to see how people
would be confused between the KYVL Gateway, predetermined search categories or
age appropriate portals, and native interfaces. Louisville Free Public Library has completed an assessment
recently to attempt to determine the reason for low use of their licensed
databases. An immediate problem arose when
people did not understand what “database” meant. They appear to think that it’s the Internet. Representatives from Murray State and EKU
indicated that they have similar problems on their campuses with not only
students but faculty. It is obvious
that librarian jargon or terminology needs to be reviewed. LFPL will be conducting an informal user
study by the end of the calendar year.
They are hopeful that they will gain more insight into this issue. Our members tossed around substitute terms
such as research or online resources. There
was a question about the feasibility of a short pop up survey within the
database which would negate the necessity of the user knowing exactly which
database they were working within.
Because of the multiple native interfaces, the portal and short project
timeframe, this concept was moved to the RFP process. Other suggestions to help users/responders understand which
databases they are assessing were to gear and deploy surveys to specific
communities of interest and to group databases by subject within the instrument. The user satisfaction surveys will be web
based. The last database assessment was
conducted by KYVL in Angel. Because
this software is geared to courses, KYVL had subscribed to and utilized Zoomerang: http://info.zoomerang.com/ Enid will determine if there is funding to
renew their subscription. Should that
not be possible, the State Library has a subscription to Survey Monkey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/
Because the
survey responses in regard to the individual databases were difficult to
interpret, the other questions on the survey dealing with delineated subject
areas, "other” subject areas that they would like to be better covered,
specific databases by name and general comments became even more critical. It was noted that these results were used
during the selection process which netted the IIMP and AltPress Watch when
SocAbs was pulled from the EBSCO group.
Subsequently,
the discussion moved on to other means of gaining qualitative information. The traditional focus group was utilized in
the assessment of 2001. Because of
lack of time, the traditional method was transformed to a guided e-mail
conversation during the last assessment in 2002. Both methods worked quite well.
A suggestion was made that some form of reward might be possible. Unfortunately between privacy/protection
issues in the K-12 environment and the lack of supportive funding, the
traditional focus group may need to be transformed. Several options could be deployed.
So why are
we conducting an assessment? The end
result will be the list of desired databases which will be an attachment to the
Request for Proposal (RFP) which will ultimately result in the next contracts
for databases which will be available on a statewide basis. The list from the last RFP was distributed.
Unless
informed otherwise, we will be moving into the procurement process under the
SAS model which we utilized the last time.
This model allows us to obtain what appear superficially to be like or
similar databases from different vendors based on the results of our stringent
evaluation process. This is evidenced
by the fact that we have access to Career & Technical Education and Computing through Proquest as opposed to
similar topical databases that are a part of the EBSCO product line. With this model, the resulting contracts are
for five years as opposed to the usual two year contracts.
While the
RFP contains significant “boilerplate” content, there is still a significant
amount of content which is the responsibility of this WG. Some of these specific areas include
This Group
will also create the evaluation instrument which will be a part of the RFP.
The
creation of this procurement document is time consuming and detailed. This process can either go in the direction
of pre-qualification of the vendors or simply the bid, response, and evaluation
process. Once the RFP “is let,” the
process is closed to insure a fair and equitable result. The vendors can ask questions. These inquiries which will come from the
vendor to the buyer in Finance and Administration to Enid could come to the
Work Group as necessary and appropriate. The vendor presentations and then the
actual evaluation will necessitate travel to Frankfort. The
evaluation process is conducted under strictly controlled circumstances. Those members working with the evaluation
must sign a confidentiality document.
During these meetings there are frequently members of the Legislative
Research Commission, the buyer, and key legal and financial officers from CPE
are in attendance to ensure that the process is conducted properly and legally.
Timeframe:
The
Assessment process should be completed in 6-7 months in the April to May 2005
timeframe. The RFP process will begin
immediately after that with that process taking easily 12 months. This process will conclude with new
contracts in place July and October 2006.
Process:
After some
discussion it was determined that this Work Group would add the Angel platform
to its tool box. The ListServ will
continue to function with Angel assisting by providing an easy document sharing
and archival location. This should
enable the WG to conduct business in a virtual environment as much as
possible.
Assessment
Committee:
Martha
Geier
Cecelia
Tavares
Sheree
Williams
Jen Schatz
Enid
Wohlstein
Charlene
Davis
Lynda Short
Lois
Schultz
This
Committee will meet on Friday, November 12 at 1:30 pm at Jefferson County
Public Schools Service Center.
Submitted
by Charlene Davis
October 20,
2004
* These
documents were distributed at the meeting.
They will be attached to the email to the WG members.
DRAFT OF ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF KVL, COLLECTIONS WORK GROUP
7-26-02
All Kentuckians will have equitable access to quality library and information resources and qualified, well-trained staff to support the Kentucky Virtual University as well as meet broader needs for learning, working and living.
To advise the Kentucky Virtual Library in evaluating and recommending databases for acquisition for and use by KVL constituents and based on these recommendations, to complete the state purchasing process as appropriate.
3. DEVELOP DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR COLLECTIONS
WORK GROUP:
(REVIEW
KVL GOALS)
1. To work collaboratively to effectively manage the programs and services of a
Virtual Library.
2. To enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of resource sharing among
Kentucky libraries by utilizing current and emerging technologies.
3. To ensure universal access to a robust statewide telecommunications network
with adequate bandwidth to support the delivery of multimedia information
resources and services.
4. To increase access to available electronic resources through cooperative
statewide licensing agreements.
5. To provide a core collection of digital information resources at lower per unit cost to enhance teaching, learning, research and public services.
6. To prepare students, faculty and staff of Kentucky’s educational institutions and the citizens of the Commonwealth to be full participants in today’s information-based global economy and in the life-long learning process by providing services to develop information literacy.
4. ASK COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHICH COLLECTIONS AREAS CONTRIBUTE TO EACH OUTCOME:
1. Public University or College
2. Private University or College
3. K-12 Public School
4. Business, hospital, state agency
5. DEVELOP
MEASURES FOR MEETING DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR
COLLECTIONS WORK GROUP:
Sample Outcome/Measure:
KYL Collections will help select and preserve an adequate electronic collection of information resources to support its mission of learning, working, and living.
In the next year, KYL Collections will work with its constituents to select databases which cover informational needs for an increasing number of constituents.
APPENDIX
KENTUCKY VIRTUAL LIBRARY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR DATABASES
EXAMPLES OF DATABASES