09. Supply holdings data for Collection Management

The supply of records containing holdings data to a shared service in order to support collection management.

Description

Activity - The supply of records containing holdings data to a shared service in order to support collection management and to optimize holdings. Libraries face increasing pressures on space, and initiatives such as the UK Research Reserve seek to enable holdings decisions on a larger scale than the individual institution. Holdings records (and some of their associated bibliographic information) are transferred to an external entity, which uses these records to inform decisions.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Actors - Libraries, which MAY require institutional buy-in, and the external service (possibly a shared service within the sector)
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Data involved - Bibliographic records containing holdings data
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Data flow - Bibliographic and holdings records are transferred from the member institutions to the service, where they can be analysed. Whether these combined records are available for local management purposes or supplied back to member institutions depends on the service design.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Does this require Open Data - Not essential, as use by the external service and potentially by the other partners can be closed.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Current Examples - We are not aware of examples based on open data, though this approach could be adopted by such as UK Research Reserve.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Benefits

Institution - Free library space and reduce acquisition costs
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Library Service - Free shelf space and improve collection management
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Researchers - Potential access to more extensive collections from other universities
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Students - Potential access to more extensive collections from other universities
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Replication - The bibliographic data extraction process will be of use for other services requiring conditional release of records. Appropriate generic licensing as opposed to a proprietary agreement with the service provider may open up other shared service opportunities.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Case for not doing it - None, assuming the process is efficiently defined and managed by the external service
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Motivation

Principles - Support decision-making and service development by bringing data together
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Costs - Part of wider cost saving initiatives regarding space and print holdings
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Services - May also lead to more optimal inter-lending arrangements across a consortium
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Rationale for not doing it - Loss of differentiation arising from collaborative activity
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Consequences of doing it as Open Data

What will happen? - Accurate and timely records supply will enable the shared service to become more optimal and will directly benefit the local library.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Potential Risks - (1) Loss of control over institutional data; (2) Coordination of the changes arising to holdings data in the local catalogue; (3) The shared service may use the records in a public search interface, taking traffic away from the local OPAC and duplicating arrangements with other shared services; (4) Increased visibility of collection leads to demand beyond ability to supply [see also UC3, UC4, UC5, UC6, UC7, UC13, UC16, UC17].
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Potential Opportunities - (1) Development of innovative / compelling third party services based on open data; (2) Development of an interlending service; (3) Increased use of library collection by internal and external users through improved discovery services [see also UC3, UC4, UC5, UC6, UC7, UC13, UC16, UC17]; (4) Shift to outsourced cataloguing and OPAC services [see also UC3, UC4, UC5, UC11].
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Consequences of not doing it? - (1) Cost to sector of unnecessary duplication of holdings; (2) Without access to local holdings records, the shared service will be less effective to the detriment of the member libraries.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Rights and Licensing Issues

Rights and licensing issues - This use case requires the explicit transfer of records to a third party. Whether that transfer is classed as ‘use’ or ‘supply’ will depend upon the nature of the relationship between the organizations involved. See http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/Projects/ TransferandUseofBibliographicRecords.aspx.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Practicalities

Data exchange formatting -
  • Model 1: A bibliographic and holdings MARC export from the LMS, based on specified criteria. Additional exports on a regular basis which represent either a full export or just changes (additions, updates and deletions) based on the original export.
  • Model 2: Supply of holdings data in an alternative (to MARC) format, possibly exported from the LMS, but also from other systems such as spreadsheets, ERMS or OpenURL resolver knowledgebases. Additional exports on a regular basis representing either a full export or just changes (additions, updates and deletions) based on the original export.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Lifecycle implications - Regular supply of updated records, either by full export or changes (additions, updates and deletions) based on the original export.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Hosting requirements - Either the responsibility of the shared service or local hosting will be required, from which the file can be retrieved by the shared service.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Existing systems impact - None
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Skills demands - Subject to LMS support of export of MARC records based on specified criteria, this should fall within the capabilities of a systems librarian. If ‘differential’ updates required, it would either be necessary for this function to be available in the LMS, or for some basic development to be done locally to produce differential update files (additions, updates, deletions). In the latter case this would require experience beyond simply running LMS reports, although should be within the capabilities of a systems librarian or local IT staff.

Model 2 additionally requires (1) Ability to transform data between library specific format and to more generic formats. This may be achieved via a third party application or through some basic development to be done locally. This would require experience beyond simply running LMS reports, although should be within the capabilities of a systems librarian or local IT staff. (2) Ability to extract data from a variety of systems. This may be achieved via a third party application or through some basic development to be done locally. This would require experience beyond simply running LMS reports, although should be within the capabilities of a systems librarian or local IT staff.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Costs

Setup - The necessary export capability should already be included within the LMS or equivalent local systems. Configuration to meet specific requirements may require modest effort that will normally be within the abilities of systems staff.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Ongoing - The costs associated with sustaining this capability are low, but will inevitably be affected by the frequency with which data updates must be supplied.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Cost of doing nothing - Library staff will continue with current activities, unnecessarily devoting time and effort to the care and management of non- critical resources.
Part of use case: | Share your experience