Selector's Toolkit: All Selector Meetings

Agenda: Discussion of Authentication and Licensing in the ordering process

Description of problem:

Sometimes completing an order can be complicated and take additional time because of non-standard authentication methods or problematic license terms. This can cause frustration for patrons and liaisons waiting for access, and additional workload for acquisitions, enterprise services, and the licensing team.

SCCS and Technical Services are exploring changes to the selection and order request process so that non-standard authentication and potentially problematic licensing terms are known earlier in the process. 

The purpose of the discussion is to provide an opportunity for selector input on how to improve these processes.

1. What are the pain points around authentication and licensing terms for selectors?
2. What do you think would help improve the process?
3. Would you as a selector want to have a checklist of preferred and non-preferred licensing terms and authentication models, and a set of defined questions related to authentication and licensing to have answered by the sales/account rep?
4. Do you foresee any problems with this approach that we should be careful of?
5. How would having this information up front, before the order request is placed, improve the current process and experience for selectors, technical services, licensing team?

Agenda:  What are the mental models we bring to storage/withdrawal projects and how might these mental models shift with the New Urgency Essential Print Core concept?

Questions to guide our discussion:

• What were past mental models about storage at MIT Libraries? What were they influence by or based on?
• What has changed that might support a shift in how we think about storage/withdrawal now?
• Using the NU description of the essential core how might we think about whether to withdraw or retain an item?
  • When might a user need the print object instead of the digital or online surrogate?
  • What kinds of items might be considered “of singular relevance to MIT research and teaching”? What might not be relevant?
  • What kinds of items might be included in a “portfolio of exceptional quality”? What might be excluded?
  • What other criteria might you consider when making a withdraw/retain decision?

Agenda:

• Welcome
• Overview of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL)
• How we’ve used CDL at MITL
• CDL in the academic libraries landscape
• Discussion questions

The New Urgency defines the essential core of physical collections as

… a portfolio of exceptional quality and singular relevance to MIT research and teaching, whose value cannot be meaningfully replicated in a digital or online context.

Thinking broadly (not limiting your thinking to the Hathi Trust experience) in what instances could CDL meaningfully replicate an item’s value, in what instances might it not?

How can CDL help us to achieve the New Urgency’s digital-first objective?

We commit to being a digital-first library; and will expedite our efforts to maximize digital access to content and services.

Collections Budget Advisory Group (CBAG) charge, membership and what we hope to accomplish.

How to apply the principles from the Libraries’ New Urgency statement to our selection practices. We read aloud, together the New Urgency statement.

Discussed two topics:

1. What would applying the principles of the New Urgency statement, in particular digital-first and an essential print core, look like at a collection level for the subject areas you support?
2. How would you apply the principles of the New Urgency statement, in particular digital-first and an essential print core, at an item level for the subject areas you support?

notes from discussion (if you're MIT Lib staff and have trouble with access, contact dlenares)

Categorized notes, what did we learn, next steps (if you're MIT Lib staff and have trouble with access, contact dlenares)

Recording of the meeting

Slides

Agenda:

• Update on continuing resources review project
• Collections Directorate overview and the New Urgency 
• Guidance for selection through the remainder of FY21 
• Discussion: “What do you see as the opportunities and concerns around how COVID-related changes impact the collections that are important to the communities you support?”

Detailed meeting notes

Agenda

• COVID collections update and Q/A
• Approval plan through the end of this fiscal year
  • Change to ebook access-to-own
• Slip and firm order selection through the end of this fiscal year (FY closes in Aleph at start of June)
  • Ebooks access-to-own
  • Ebooks via Gobi slip/firm order
  • Ebook publisher/platform collections
• Discussion of the challenges and opportunities with this change

Agenda
1:30-3:00

MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts and implications for selectors and acquisitions

• Context setting (15-20 minutes)
  • How the Framework came about and relationship to the Open Access Task Force recommendations
  • Update about where we are with publisher negotiations under the Framework
  • Discussion of some questions that have been sent in advance


• Small group discussions (20 minutes)
  • How could you imagine this Framework affecting or impacting your role or approaches to your work?


• Groups report back to full group (15 minutes)


• Discuss any questions that haven’t been addressed (10 minutes)


• Next steps (5 minutes)

Agenda
1:30-3:00

• Introduction (5 min, Ellen)
  • Brief reminder of previous conversation (6/17/19 All Selector Meeting) and the resulting commitments made by A&A, DLS, and SCCS
  
  
• Review New Documentation of Access Models (20 min, Adam)
  • Adam Shire has created new documentation describing the access models, and he will walk us through this document and answer questions.
  
  
• Principles and Roles for Access Model Decisions (40 min total)
  • Group Process Introduction (5 min, Ellen or Kim)
    • We will divide into three groups, where each group will discuss three use cases to aid in generating principles for approaching access model decisions, and making suggestions about roles for decision making, including selector’s role.
    • One person should take notes on a laptop; this is instead of writing things on the glass boards or using flip chart paper, both of which would need to be transcribed.
  
  
  • Three Use Cases (each group considers and discusses all three cases)
    • Request to set up streaming access which would require a password shared via a Touchstone landing screen
    • Whether to set up access for a product that raises concerns about user data privacy
    • Whether to devote staff resources to build a totally new model or new variant with significant work involved
  
  
  • Questions for the Groups to Consider:
    • Who plays what role(s) in the decision making process? Who contributes what in the process? In particular, selectors should consider what the selector role should be; acquisitions should consider what their role should be; DLS should consider what their role should be.
    • What principles do you see emerging from the use cases that should be used to inform our decisions? Below are some principles drafted previously; use/edit them as they are helpful.
    • Draft Principles to work from:
      • Meeting community needs whenever possible
      • Following MIT policies, practices, and standards
      • Protecting user data privacy
      • Appropriately deploying staff and monetary resources
      • Embracing reasonable experimentation, and assessing experiments
  
  
  • Groups Report Back (10-15 min total, 3-5 min per group)
    • Kim will facilitate; Cindy Rosenthal will take notes