Final Report of the E-Resource Project Team to the SUNYConnect by HC120807234223

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 23

									Final Report of the E-Resource Project Team to the SUNYConnect Advisory
Council (SAC)
August 7, 2012

Introduction and History

Centralized database subscriptions for SUNY libraries date back to 1998 and before. The
cooperative effort involved in such decisions dates to the same time periods. This project
team acknowledges the work of the SUNY Library Contract Advisory Team. That
SUNY-wide committee provided for both an increasing amount of electronic resources
and useful documents and analysis that assisted us in our work.

Over time there has been an increase in the electronic resources that have been made
available to all SUNYConnect institutions. Currently, this includes subscriptions to the
FirstSearch Base Package, ScienceDirect, a suite of Thomson Gale databases including
InfoTrac OneFile, online New England Journal of Medicine, the AP Multimedia Archive
as well as purchased content from NetLibrary, electronic books from Gale and a subset of
HarpWeek.

The coordinated and centralized purchase of electronic resources has been a foundation
of SUNY libraries’ cooperative efforts from the very start of those initiatives. For a
university system as large and diverse as SUNY, this process always requires
compromise. Yet it is widely recognized that certain core information needs of the
system can be met more efficiently and economically when purchased centrally.

Beginning in February 2006, the Electronic Resources Evaluation Project Team,
consisting of representatives from various academic sectors, commenced its charge to
examine information resources (available via existing state contracts) to see if additional
content and/or additional subject areas could be included in the centrally purchased
library databases. On April 12, 2006 the Team met to finalize its recommendations
which, along with supporting documents, are presented here. The project team is
confident that these recommendations continue the trend of increasing the amount and
improving the quality and relevance of electronic content that will be made available to
all of our libraries and their various user communities through SUNYConnect.

Charge of the E-Resources Evaluation Project Team1

The Project Team was established by the SUNYConnect Advisory Council and was
charged with the following:

                To evaluate and provide recommendations on electronic resources for
                 inclusion in SUNYConnect. These resources were to be, preferably, full-
                 text and support research in liberal arts, business, health and education and
                 fulfill core information needs of SUNY libraries.

1
 This section was derived from the Electronic Resources Evaluation Project Team Charge, as written and
approved by the SUNYConnect Advisory Council.
                To provide recommendations on how best to utilize the finite amount of
                 financial resources available. These recommendations were to take into
                 account contracts and purchasing agreements currently in place via
                 agencies such as NYLINK and New York State contracts.

                To evaluate selected electronic resources in the context of new
                 technologies such as open URL linking via SFX system.

                To recommend a process for the ongoing assessment and evaluation of
                 SUNYConnect electronic resources.

The overall goal for the SUNYConnect electronic resource offerings is to provide access
to as many core information resources as available monies allow, freeing up
SUNYConnect campus funds to be spent on more specialized resources that fit that
campus’ educational and research mission.

E-Resources Evaluation Project Team Organization2

The Project Team was appointed at the end of January 2006 by SAC, and has been
actively involved in the evaluation process from February to April 2006.

OLIS staff member John Schumacher acted as the Project Manager for this process. As
Project Manager he was responsible for setting meeting agendas, running meetings,
establishing decision making protocols, arranging facilities, coordinating demonstrations,
investigating and analyzing information, ensuring ongoing communication among the
various stakeholders, distribution of assignments, working with the committee members
to ensure that the information and resources necessary to meet our objectives were
provided. The Project Manager was a non-voting member of the committee.

Project Team members were responsible for setting selection criteria, identifying
appropriate products for review, assessing selected products, identifying appropriate
products for inclusion in SUNYConnect, regular communication with their constituent
group and submitting a final report to the SAC. The Project Team consisted of a SUNY
faculty representative, Joanne Curran from Oneonta, and student representative,
Stephanie Adika from New Paltz. The following librarians were nominated by their
library’s director and selected by the SAC to act as a library representative for the E-
Resources Evaluation Project Team for each of the following sectors of the University:

                Mary Casserly, Albany (University Centers)
                Dawn Eckenrode, Fredonia (Comprehensive Colleges)
                Mohamed Hussain, Downstate (Health Science Centers)
                Dave Lewis, Tompkins-Cortland (Community Colleges)
                Amy Schleigh, Delhi (Technology Colleges)

2
 This section was derived from a report initially developed by OLIS, then reviewed and revised by S.A.C.
The original text can be found online: SUNYergy. “E-Resources Evaluation Team is Announced.” 8:1. Jan.
2006. http://www.sunyconnect.suny.edu/sunyergy/28eresteam.htm


                                                                                                       2
In addition, library directors were each asked to name an individual from their staff to be
the contact person for each SUNY campus in this initiative. The contacts appointed by
the library directors provided a constituent group for each of the Project Team members.
Each Team member was responsible for establishing communication with their
constituents and gathering feedback pertaining to the database resources that were being
evaluated. See Appendix A for individual reports from each library representative.

Timeline of the Project Team’s Activities

Februrary 1, 2006: John Schumacher established a listserv that was used as the primary
communication tool for the Project Team throughout the evaluation and selection
process.

February 10, 2006: The Project Team held its first face-to-face meeting at the SUNY
Plaza in Albany, New York. The agenda made provisions for the Team to discuss and
decide upon the following: the charge of the team, operating procedures and ground
rules, current and possible electronic resources under consideration, the information
needs of the team, the evaluation tool and schema, and product demos, trials and vendor
presentations that needed to be set up. See Appendix B for the finalized version of the
SUNYConnect E-Resource Evaluation Team Considerations and Selection Criteria
document. See Appendix C-1 for the full minutes from this meeting.

March 2, 2006: The Project Team held a meeting via conference call. The agenda
included a discussion of the evaluation criteria and decision making protocols. See
Appendix C-2 for the full minutes from this meeting.

March 7, 2006: The Project Team met at the SUNY Plaza in Albany, New York in order
to view presentations by the following vendors: EBSCO, Wilson, ProQuest and Gale. See
Appendix C-3 for a summary of this meeting.

April 12, 2006: The Project Team held its final meeting in Albany to discuss the
feedback from the various campus constituents. Based on this feedback, the team was
able to come to an agreement on a recommendation that was presented in its preliminary
form to SAC on the same day. The Team also discussed its recommendations to SAC
concerning a process for ongoing assessment of the SUNYConnect Resources. See
Appendix C-4 for the full minutes from this meeting.

Recommendations

Recommendation I. The task force recommends subscribing to EBSCO’s proposed
package B which includes:

       Academic Search Premier (ASP)
       Business Source Premier (BSP)
       CINAHL Plus with Full Text (CPFT)
       CINAHL Select (free with CPFT)


                                                                                          3
       ERIC (free with ASP and BSP)
       MasterFILE Premier (free with ASP and BSP)
       MEDLINE (free with ASP and BSP)
       Regional Business News (free with BSP)

       With the proviso to include EBSCO’s soon to be released database, Education
       Research Complete.

                                        Rationale

The decision to recommend the EBSCO databases was based on three factors. First,
EBSCO offers full-text databases that cover the range of subjects identified as most
important by the Project Team’s charge, i.e., multi-disciplinary, business, education, and
health/nursing. Second, the overwhelming majority of SUNY libraries, regardless of
institution type, found the EBSCO interface to be either their first choice or an acceptable
choice. The interface is seen as being intuitive and includes most of the functionality on
the list of criteria used by the E-Resources Evaluation Project Team (See Appendix B). In
addition, because of the presence of EBSCO databases in many secondary school, public,
and other academic institution libraries, it is familiar to many library users by the time
they arrive on the SUNY campuses. Third, the combination of the preferred interface and
desired subject coverage on a single platform was the most effective means of leveraging
SUNY funds. All of the vendors provided the Evaluation Team with pricing for packages
of their databases and for each database in the package if purchased alone. It was clear
that purchasing databases by the package was much more cost effective than purchasing
them individually. EBSCO’s package offered the needed content, the preferred interface,
and an affordable price.

                                       Implications

What does this recommendation mean for SUNY libraries? It does constitute a significant
change in the resources provided centrally. The SUNYConnect E-Resources collection
will no longer include:

          AccuNet/AP Multimedia Archive
          Gale databases
           o Infotrac Onefile
           o Expanded Academic ASAP
           o Investext Plus
           o Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
          OCLC FirstSearch Base Package
           o WorldCat
           o ArticleFirst
           o ClasePeriodica
           o EBooks Index
           o Electronic Collections Online
           o ERIC (will be available via EBSCO interface)



                                                                                           4
           o   GPO
           o   MEDLINE (will be available via EBSCO interface)
           o   PapersFirst
           o   ProceedingsFirst
           o   World Almanac

The SUNYConnect package will include the databases mentioned in the recommendation
section above, as well as Science Direct, and Gale Virtual Reference Library, Literature
Resource Center, and HarpWeek, for each of which we will continue to pay hosting fees.

Regarding the OCLC FirstSearch package, and WorldCat in particular, Nylink has
provided preliminary cost estimates for individual campus subscriptions. Given that
OCLC has not offered SUNYConnect any additional group discounts, the overall cost to
SUNY will be essentially the same.

ILL staff access to the WorldCat Resource Sharing interface will still be available to
those SUNY libraries that currently pay for this service. Should individual campuses
elect not to subscribe to WorldCat, reference staff and end-users would no longer be able
to search the public OCLC WorldCat interface or to initiate borrowing requests.
However, other options are available. The SUNY Union Catalog and universal borrowing
initiative will enable end-users to initiate their own borrowing requests, albeit limited to
SUNY collections. To search collections on a broader scope than SUNY, libraries can
use Open WorldCat or the RedLightGreen union catalog.

Content covered by the current Gale databases, with the exception of the Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center, is similar to that provided by EBSCO databases. Since
there is no EBSCO counterpart to Opposing Viewpoints, and several SUNY libraries
rated it an essential resource, OLIS should try to negotiate a group discount for this
database.

Recommendation II. The E-Resources Evaluation Project Team makes the following
recommendations regarding the ongoing assessment and evaluation of the electronic
resources purchased by SUNYConnect.
    1. SUNYConnect Advisory Council working with the SUNY Library Directors
       should appoint a Standing Electronic Resources Committee.
    2. The Committee members should be librarians representing all SUNY institution
       types.
    3. The Committee should include one faculty representative who should be a
       member of the SUNY Faculty Senate.
    4. The E-Resources Evaluation Project Team does not recommend the inclusion of a
       student representative.
    5. The Committee’s charge should be to review SUNY subscriptions on a regular
       basis to assure that they are providing effective and useful resources to the SUNY
       community. In order to do this the Committee would:
            Monitor and evaluate changes in subscription content, service, and
               interface features that occur during the subscription period



                                                                                          5
        Collect and analyze feedback from SUNY libraries on the adequacy and
         the value of the SUNY subscriptions
       Conduct analyses of use and cost of subscribed databases
6. The Committee would lobby vendors for changes to resources that would benefit
   SUNY libraries.
7. The Committee would submit a written report to the SUNYConnect Advisory
   Council annually.




                                                                                   6
Appendix A:
Library Representative Reports

Section A-1
University Center Libraries

Mary Casserly, Assistant Director for Collections and Users Services at the University at
Albany and chair of the SUNY Collections and Access Council (SCAC), was the
University Center Libraries’ representative on the E-Resources Evaluation Team.

Communication with the University Center (UC) Libraries concerning the SUNY E-
resources Evaluation took place using the SCAC listserv. This listserv has been used by
SCAC members for about two years. For the purposes of consulting with, and getting
input from, the other doctoral granting institution libraries the e-resources evaluation
process representatives from NYSCC and SUNY College of Optometry were added to
the listserv. In a series of messages to the listserv the libraries’ representatives were
informed about selection criteria, availability of trials, and deadlines for submitting their
evaluations. Input was sent to either the UC or the HSC library representative.

Three of the University Center Libraries selected EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier as
their preferred multi-disciplinary database. One did not see the need to move from Gale
to another platform but indicated that EBSCO was acceptable. EBSCO was also the
preferred database for business although ABI/Inform from ProQuest was acceptable for
most. Investext from Gale was acceptable to, but not preferred by, one of the University
Center Libraries. Coverage of education was important to the majority of these libraries.
Although not all UC Libraries have nursing programs, coverage of nursing as a subject
area was important to the ones that do

Section A-2
Comprehensive Colleges

Dawn Eckenrode, Reference and Instruction Librarian at SUNY Fredonia, was the
Comprehensive College Libraries’ representative on the E-Resource Evaluation Team.

Communication with the Comprehensive Colleges took place via email correspondence.
Through this venue the constituents were informed of the project team’s charge, the
database trials available, and the deadline for submitting campus feedback. Each campus’
representative was encouraged to ask questions and address issues of concern.

Each of the campus contacts were asked to explore the databases under consideration and
provide a ranking for what they felt are the "best" databases for each category. In
addition, the campus contacts were asked to provide an overall ranking of each vendor
under consideration, an overall ranking the subject areas they felt are most essential for
their campuses, an overall ranking of the databases that are under consideration, and a
description of the evaluation criteria they felt should receive the greatest consideration
when the Team was making it's final recommendations. For assistance with this portion



                                                                                                7
of the task, I provided them with the document called, "Considerations and Selection
Criteria Worksheet." (See Appendix B) The contact at each campus was also given a list
of current SUNYConnect resources, and they were asked to provide feedback on those
databases as well. The following is a summary of the responses received from the
Comprehensive Colleges:

Overall Ranking by Vendor: (By average rating)
First Choice: EBSCO
Second Choice: ProQuest
Third Choice: Thomson/Gale
Fourth Choice: Wilson OmniFile

Overall Ranking of Importance by Subject Area: (By average rating)
First Choice: Multidisciplinary
Second Choice: Psychology / Education (these two tied in popularity)
Third Choice: Business
Fourth Choice: Nursing
Other: Criminal Justice/Sociology; Area Studies such as history, art, gender; History,
chemistry, biology, art w/ graphic arts

Ranking by Database Type: Multidisciplinary (By average rating)
Ranked #1: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO)
Ranked #2: Proquest 5000
Ranked #3: InfoTrac Onefile
Ranked #4: ProQuest Research Library
Ranked #5: Wilson Omnifile

Ranking by Database Type: Business (By average rating)
Ranked #1: Business Source Premier (EBSCO)
Ranked #2: ABI Inform Complete w/ Intellidocs
Ranked #3: ABI Inform Complete w/out Intellidocs
Ranked #4: ABI Inform Global
Ranked #5: Business and Company Resource Center
Ranked #6: Factiva

Ranking by Database Type: Nursing (By average rating)
Ranked #1: CINHAL w/ Full Text (EBSCO) and CINHAL Database w/ ProQuest Full
Text (These two resources were the same in popularity)
Ranked #2: ProQuest Nursing Journals
Ranked #3: Two campuses did not have an interest in any of the nursing titles

Ranking by Database Type: Education (By average rating)
Ranked #1: ERIC (EBSCO)
Ranked #2: ERIC Plus Text (ProQuest)
Ranked #3: Education Index (Wilson) and ProQuest Education Journals were tied in
popularity



                                                                                         8
Ranked #4: ProQuest Professional Education

Selection and Evaluation Criteria Considered Most Important:
    o Addresses a long-term need of a large segment of our users.
    o Breadth/Depth of Coverage
    o Breadth and Depth of coverage (pay attn. to timing of embargos, inclusion of all
       charts and images, Currency and real depth of back file, absence of filler titles that
       they all seem to be adding now)
    o Display and graphics (Usability)
    o Breadth and depth of coverage. I included here “fields indexed”.
    o ADA compliance
    o Utility across SUNY (WorldCat is a prime example; if SUNYConnect does not
       provide WorldCat, every campus will – not might, but will – lose access vital
       services and access.)
    o Breadth and Depth of Coverage (# of journals indexed/available in fulltext,
       stability of fulltext (not constantly changing) etc.)
    o Breadth/Depth

When asked to list the databases that SUNYConnect currently subscribes they feel are
absolutely essential resources for your library, the following responses were provided:

   o   8 of the 9 respondents listed WorldCat
   o   6 of the 9 respondents listed Literature Resource Center
   o   4 of the 9 respondents listed Opposing Viewpoints
   o   3 of the 9 respondents listed ERIC
   o   3 of the 9 respondents listed Gale Virtual Reference Library
   o   1 respondent listed GPO
   o   1 respondent listed AccuNet/AP Multimedia Archive
   o   1 respondent listed ECO
   o   1 respondent listed EBooks Index

Section A-3
Health Science Centers

Mohamed Hussain, Assistant Director for Resource Management at the Medical
Research Library of Brooklyn, was the Health Science Centers’ representative on the E-
Resources Evaluation Team.

The Health Science Centers gave no negative responses to the proposed packages.
Upstate indicated that it was impressed by the SAGE package while Downstate preferred
the EBSCO package.




                                                                                           9
Section A-4
Community College Libraries

David Lewis, Librarian for Systems, Technical Services, and Electronic Information
Resources, was the Community College Libraries’ representative on the E-Resources
Evaluation Team

Communication with Community College Libraries about the SUNY E-Resources
Evaluation Project was through direct e-mail to librarians appointed as the campus liaison
by the library director. Four contacts were made with each community college library.
Correspondence sent to the campus liaison was also sent to the SCLD Community
College SAC representative for distribution to library directors via the SCLD list.

Each campus was provided with a list of current SUNYConnect resources, a copy of the
SAC charge to the E-Resources Committee, information about the committee structure
and timeline, meeting minutes, trial database access instructions, and “Considerations and
Selection Criteria” (see appendix B). Campuses were asked to comment on current
SUNYConnect resources as well as the trial databases. In order to assist in the evaluation
campuses were encouraged to use the following document and questions to guide their
thoughts:

      “Considerations and Selection Criteria” (see appendix B)
      Which product (in each category of database) do you want? Why this product
       (and not the others)?
      What are the most important criteria? and Why?
      How does this product meet the criteria?
      What are the most important features to my library?

Responses were received from 23 of the 30 community college libraries. The reactions to
specific databases and to vendor interfaces were varied with preference expressed by at
least one campus for three of the four multi-disciplinary databases.

For the multi-disciplinary database, the majority of the responses indicated that Academic
Search Premier from EBSCO was either preferred or acceptable. For a subject database,
twenty of the twenty-three campuses indicated a need for CINAHL with full text.
Reactions to a business database were mixed with support expressed for Business Source
Premier, ABI Inform, and for simply using Business and Company Resource Center,
which is provided to all by NOVEL. Eleven campuses indicated that Opposing
Viewpoints was high-use and a very important or essential database to retain. I have
conveyed that to OLIS and to the committee. Several campuses commented on
PsycINFO. Comments about PsycINFO ranged from “We definitely need PsycINFO”
and “we have it and we love it” to “We do not need PsycINFO. Much of it is
index/abstract rather than full-text” and “Do not consider it (PsycINFO) for purchase”.
While there was some support expressed for AccuNet/AP Multimedia Archive, many
campuses indicated that it is not highly used, not a high priority, or does not fit the
definition of a core resource. There were many comments about OCLC and the majority


                                                                                       10
felt that WorldCat is the only important part of the SUNY base package. This issue is
covered elsewhere in this report.

Several campuses have provided detailed comments and suggestions for improvements to
specific databases and/or interface. These comments have been summarized and sent to
vendor support without identifying the institution.

Section A-5
Colleges of Technology (COT) Libraries

Amy Schleigh, Reference, Instruction and Web Librarian at SUNY Delhi, was the
Colleges of Technology representative on the E-Resources Evaluation Team.

A designated representative at each of the COT Libraries was contacted directly via a
series of emails over the course of several weeks, and informed of the project team’s
charge, the evaluation criteria, the database trials available and guidelines for extending
access to those trials, as well as a deadline for submitting campus feedback. The contact
at each campus was also given a list of current SUNYConnect resources and
expenditures, and asked to provide feedback on those databases as well.

There were, of course, differing opinions, but the majority of respondents who had a clear
preference, preferred EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, or
CINAHL over competitors’ products, or considered EBSCO’s products to be acceptable.
Two campuses expressed concern over the potential removal of FirstSearch, specifically
WorldCat, from the SUNYConnect collection.




                                                                                          11
Appendix B:
Considerations and Selection Criteria
March 2, 2006

When evaluating and recommending electronic resources for possible addition to
SUNYConnect, the E-Resource Evaluation Team will consider the following:

      User Community: The product should be appropriate for as broad a spectrum of
       SUNY users as possible. As stipulated in the Team’s charge the databases should
       be fulltext and should address information needs in the liberal arts, business,
       health and/or education.
      Content Integrity and Stability: Full text databases should include the complete
       full text including notes and references. Where applicable, the full image or the
       text plus graphics of the original are preferable to full text alone. Databases
       should demonstrate high stability of content and item linking.
      Updates: Updates to content should be timely and appropriate.
      Interface Continuity: Wherever possible, continuity of search interfaces should
       be maintained across databases.
      Duplication: Every reasonable effort should be made to avoid duplication of
       content among selected databases.
      Stability of Access: Routine access should be as close to continuous (7x24) as
       possible. Response time should meet industry standards of acceptability. Vendors
       must be willing and able to respond to access problems whenever they occur and
       to make all necessary adjustments to restore and maintain acceptable service.
      Basic and Advanced Search Capabilities: The search interface should enable
       easy and effective searching by both inexperienced and proficient users.
      Local Holdings Information: Bibliographic databases should offer the ability to
       identify title holdings at the local library level. Should be open URL compliant.
      Electronic Linkages: Databases should allow for linkages between indexed
       sources such as journal titles and locally held or consortium electronic full text.
       Should be open URL compliant.
      Technological Compatibility: Electronic resources must be accessible within the
       technological environment of the State University of New York. Vendors should
       allow for remote authentication.
      Fair Use: Licensing agreements should preserve all rights to traditional academic
       "fair use" practices including copying, downloading or emailing and document
       delivery.
      Ability to Monitor Effectiveness: Vendors should provide on a continuing and
       timely basis the ability to maintain user statistics and technical data needed for
       evaluation of electronic products. Use statistics should be COUNTER compliant.
      Product Modification or Customization: Where necessary, an attempt should
       be made to negotiate with vendors to customize database packages to meet SUNY
       requirements as closely as possible.
      Price: While price is not the most important selection issue, every effort should
       be made to maximize the cost benefit to the State University of New York.



                                                                                       12
      License of Content: A perpetual license to the content is preferred and should be
       transferable.
      Adherence to Current Technical Standards: Resources should comply with
       present and emerging standards.

The following criteria follow from the considerations above and may be used as a work
sheet for comparing and evaluating e-resources. The order in which these criteria are
presented does not reflect their importance. Some elements may not apply to some
resources and certain types of resources may suggest additional elements not listed here.

Breadth and Depth of Coverage
    Title Counts: # titles indexed only; # titles embargoed, # titles peer reviewed or
       some other measure of academic/research vs. popular titles
    Completeness – which articles from a publication are included – could be
       obtained from publisher’s indexing policy.
    Currency of content- indexing and fulltext
    Backfile coverage - fulltext and indexing
    Frequency of updates
    List of journals covered available online
    Description of database(s) available online
    “Value-added” content such as web links, reference articles, multimedia images,
       etc.

Indexing policies
    Fields indexed
    Controlled vocabulary/thesaurus
    Number of index terms applied per article

Manipulation of Results
    E-mail
   Downloading to disk
   Printing – compatibility with our networked printers
   Clarity of instructions for printing, downloading and e-mailing
   Personalized patron accounts that allow users to save search result and search
      history.
   Ability to create e-mail search alerts
   RSS feeds which allow users to feed results from search alerts and journal alerts
      to their RSS readers and aggregators, as well as their web sites.

Display and Graphics
    Clear results display
    Site is attractively and clearly presented
    User friendly – (minimum instruction is needed to use)
    ADA compliance
    Display customizable


                                                                                        13
Search Features
    Boolean operators
    Online help available
    Basic search
    Advanced search
    Keyword search
    Journal title search
    Date limit
    Proximity searching
    Use of truncation symbols
    Ability to search databases simultaneously
    Ability to limit search to specific database of part of the database
    Limit to full text
    Display search history
    Combine sets
    Subject searching
    Limit to peer reviewed articles
    Specialized database limiters (for example, by audience, report type, etc.)

Technical Considerations
    Compliant with technical norms across SUNY
    Open URL compliance
    Persistent URLs
    Remote access and ability to proxy
    Use of cookies
    Browser requirements
    Local administrative management

Quality of Customer Service
    Technical support available 24/7 with specific contract information
    Online help available
    Training provided by vendor
    Bibliographic instruction accommodations (For databases with simultaneous use
       limits, limits can be lifted during class instruction periods.)
    COUNTER compliant use statistics available for SUNY in the aggregate and for
       each campus
    Ability to track title changes

Relationships to other resources
    Familiarity of interface
    Ability to search across databases
    Linking to or from other databases
    Ability to display local holdings and/or link to local OPACs


                                                                                   14
Licensing
    Adherence to academic fair use principles (e.g. scholarly sharing, course packs,
       reserves)
    Simultaneous use options
    Guaranteed access to subscribed years if cancelled

Other things to look for
    How database handles searching by hyphenated names
    How database handles searching by Spanish surnames




                                                                                        15
Appendix C:
Meeting Minutes

Section C-1

E-Resources Evaluation Project Team Meeting Minutes
February 10, 2006
Present: Mary Casserly (Albany), Joanne Curran (Oneonta), Dawn Eckenrode (Fredonia),
Mohamed Hussain (Downstate), Dave Lewis (Tompkins-Cortland), Amy Schleigh
(Delhi), John Schumacher (OLIS)
Excused: Stephanie Adika (New Paltz) Stephanie joined the meeting via telephone for a
portion of the day

1) Introductions
The Team has a good mix of experience. Some members are involved in front line
services to patrons; others have good experience in working with vendors, etc.
Acknowledgement made of this being one of the first SUNY-wide library committees
that also includes a faculty and student representative. JC mentioned that she has both
teaching and administrative experience, but that she does not have a role vis-à-vis the
SUNY-wide Faculty Senate.

Agenda was amended flipping the position of items 3 and 4.

JS thanked the group for being able to meet on short notice. And indicated that
additional hoped for results of the meeting (in addition to being able to meet face-to-face
for the first time) included:
 establishing an initial take on what vendors/databases/electronic resources to
    evaluate;
 getting a sense from the group of the right mix of in-person presentations, online
    trials, webinars, etc.;
 requests for additional information / resources;
 a start on establishing selection criteria/evaluation model.

2) Team Charge
JS urged team members to take off their campus hat and to focus on SUNY-wide
information needs as well as needs more specific to their campus sector. Emphasized
responsibility to fulfilling S.A.C.’s charge and to our SUNY library colleagues. Since
existing contracts are to be utilized, however, the team does not have to fulfill
requirements specific to New York State contracting procedures.

The group focused on the first bulleted item of the charge, highlighting the subject areas
mentioned as well as the references to “core information needs” and “full text” resources.
With an end-of-April deadline the plan is to focus on vendor demonstrations/trial access
from now through March. Finalizing assessments and the team’s report in the month of
April.



                                                                                          16
Roles for the Project Manager and team members were highlighted. Reminder that
“campus contacts” forming a constituent group were posted to the project email list.

3) Ground Rules
The group agreed to strive for consensus. If a member so chooses, however, a vote can
be called.

Any Evaluation Tool/Schema used to assess electronic resources are to be used as input
in the decision making process. Final decisions on selection/recommendation from the
group will be informed by that and other sources of input, but based on the consensus
and/or vote of the group.

4) Open Discussion
DE asked about previous SUNY-wide evaluations of electronic resources. JS provided
and briefly went over documents generated from SLiCAT. Indicating that the work done
previously needs to be acknowledged but that the present group is free to use or not use
any portions of that work/previous recommendations as they see fit.

MC, MH, DL and others all discussed FirstSearch as a (current) SUNYConnect-wide
resource. Price quotes for individual campus subscriptions to FirstSearch/WorldCat have
been requested.

The group discussed specific electronic resources that should be considered.

5) Current & Possible Electronic Resources
Various documents, etc. had previously been posted to the list. These included a listing
of current SUNYConnect resources along with cost information, condensed information
about resources available via New York State contracts, products available via Nylink or
OCLC, and specific information from some of the major vendors.

Overviews of some of these documents generated requests for price quotes.

6) Additional Information Needs for the Team
These include: usage statistics for AP Multimedia Archive, a status report on the ERIC
database, current status of NOVEL and resources offered via the New York State
Library, some clarification re: FirstSearch/WorldCat, roles played by and/or resources
provided by OLIS/SUNYConnect, Nylink, NYSL, an update on the types of degrees
conferred by SUNY, additional examples of selection models, and various price quotes.

7) Evaluation Tool/Schema
MC agreed to incorporate components of selection criteria documents previously used by
SLiCAT (and, at least partially authored by MC) into a single document. This will be
posted to the list for feedback from the group. Major areas covered by these evaluations
of a resource’s quality include content, indexing, searching, results management,
customer service, display, technical considerations, licensing and other.




                                                                                        17
JS presented one model for taking the measures of quality (above, to be agreed on) and
cost information incorporating both into a weighted scheme. The example presented had
quality with a weight of 70 (out of 100) and cost with a weight of 30. The group decided
to look at additional models before finalizing this decision.

8) Demos/Presentations/Trials to Set Up
Information about trial access will also be sent to campus contacts. Team members will
need to incorporate that feedback into their evaluations. The group was also in
agreement about particulars related to vendor presentations:
 price quotes are required before the session;
 limited timeframe (ca. 1 hour);
 materials need to be sent out ahead of time;
 focus on content, customization and database “varieties”, not on interface
    characteristics or out right sales pitches.

9) Additional Topics/Other
Reminder made of last bulleted item from charge (dealing with procedures for ongoing
assessment). Mention made of notion of “mini-consortia” and possible procedures for
smaller groups of SUNY libraries to come together in regards to a resource of interest.

10) Wrap Up
JS thanked the group for a productive meeting. Items to follow up on:
 Contact vendors with introductory information and with requests for price quotes,
    trial access, presentations;
 Additional requests for price quotes;
 Additional information requests;
 Finalize selection criteria and evaluation model;
 Work with team and vendors in setting up presentations.




                                                                                          18
Section C-2

SUNYConnect Electronic Resources Evaluation Project Team
Conference Call
Thursday March 2, 2006
10am--11:30am

Participating: Mary Casserly (Albany), Joanne Curran (Oneonta), Dawn Eckenrode
(Fredonia), Mohamed Hussain (Downstate), Dave Lewis (Tompkins-Cortland), Amy
Schleigh (Delhi), John Schumacher (OLIS)

Topics
1) Selection criteria
Revisions and questions regarding the document posted to the list were discussed. Mary
made the revisions and finalized the “considerations and selection criteria” for
SUNYConnect-wide electronic resources. The document is included here.

The group as well as the campus contacts can use this document as a set of guidelines and
as a worksheet for evaluating the resources.

2) Decision making protocol
John reiterated that the group’s responsibility is to the SUNY community. Because we
are utilizing existing state contracts, we don’t have formal, legal obligations for formula-
driven selection. The notion of “due diligence” and that of a fair-minded review of the
various resources and how they fit with SUNYConnect-wide needs is what should drive
the process. This can be based on the judgement and expertise of the team as well as on
the input from the campus contacts.

Dave mentioned that he might get requests from community college contacts for more
formal, programmatic approaches to final input into their recommendations. Otherwise,
the group voiced support for a discussion and consensus-driven final selection.

John offered to write up a summary of this process as part of a final
report/recommendation.

3) Preparation/comments March 7th presentations
Schedule finalized with EBSCO, ProQuest, Wilson and Gale.

Some of the ProQuest products are really geared for a K-12 audience. The group agreed
to have those removed from the trial site and possible presentation during the March 7th
session [done].

Some of the price quotes were still unavailable. John indicated that he would post those
to the list and bring copies to the March 7th presentation [last price quote received the
morning of March 7th].




                                                                                          19
4) Other issues
John highlighted a secondary portion of the Team’s charge. That is to develop
procedures for the ongoing assessment of SUNYConnect electronic resources. The group
discussed looking at this after they were further along with this current assessment.
Various members commented that even the timeframe for this current assessment is
short. Recommendations for ongoing assessment may have to take the form of broad
guidelines and possible continuation of a SUNYConnect-wide committee such as this one
(or a comparable group).

5) Updates
Additional price quotes received from AP Multimedia Archive, Groliers, Oxford
University Press and Emerald Publishing. These were posted to the list after the March
7th presentation.

Trial access for Sage Publishing is expected in the near term.
Price quotes from Blackwell and Project Muse have been requested previously.




                                                                                     20
Section C-3

Vendor Presentations
SUNYConnect Electronic Resources Evaluation Project Team
March 7, 2006
SUNY Plaza (downtown Albany)
Room N303

Agenda

9:00           Coffee/discussion

9:30           Vendor Presentation -- EBSCO

10:30          Discussion

11:00          Vendor Presentation -- Wilson

12:00          Lunch/Discussion

1:00           Vendor Presentation -- ProQuest

2:00           Discussion

2:30           Vendor Presentation -- Gale

3:30           Discussion

Summary
Four major vendors of full-text databases made presentations to the Team. The major
focus was on their general academic, business, nursing, education, newspaper or
psychology resources. Credit to the team for their attention through a long day. For the
most part, the vendors followed the recommendation of the group to highlight their
content, the various packages of databases that they offer and how these comments
related to the price proposals made to SUNYConnect.

The next step is to work with the vendors’ trial access and to evaluate (in conjunction
with the campus contacts) the various databases in earnest. An April 12, 2006 meeting is
being planned to try and finalize the recommendation to the SUNYConnect Advisory
Council.




                                                                                       21
Section C-4

SUNYConnect Electronic Resources Evaluation Project Team
April 12, 2006
SUNY Plaza (downtown Albany)
Room S137
9am – 4pm
Present: Mary Casserly (Albany), Joanne Curran (Oneonta), Dawn Eckenrode (Fredonia),
Mohamed Hussain (Downstate), Dave Lewis (Tompkins-Cortland), Amy Schleigh
(Delhi), John Schumacher (OLIS)

Agenda
1) Review / Discussion
        Everyone described both the nature and the content of comments from the
          various campus contacts. Good faith efforts have been made for getting as
          much feedback about the trial resources from as many campuses as possible.
        Not surprisingly, there were contradictory comments. But, on the other hand,
          common themes and similar responses (about a preferred vendor) did become
          evident as we heard from all the campus/group sectors.

2) Team’s Recommendation to SUNYConnect Advisory Council
        Based on the feedback from the campus contacts and as a supplement to the
          evaluations of team members, a general consensus about the recommendation
          was reached relatively quickly.
        The team recognized that as a result of this as well as the coincidence that the
          SUNYConnect Advisory Council was meeting down the hall, an informal
          presentation of that recommendation could be made to S.A.C. in advance of
          the formal, written report.
        The Team presented its recommendation informally to S.A.C. S.A.C.
          approved and advised the Team to go forward with additional discussions and
          production of the final report/recommendation.

3) Other Portions of Committee’s Charge
        The group discussed issues related to “ongoing assessment and evaluation of
           SUNYConnect electronic resources.” Mary indicated that she would work on
           this section of the report.
        A number of committee members acknowledged the need for this group (or
           similar group) to continue these and related efforts. Joanne recommended that
           the faculty representative have a connection with the SUNY Faculty Senate.
        The group discussed issues related to SUNY group purchases of electronic
           resources (that is, possible subscriptions involving a group of SUNY libraries,
           but not all).
        John mentioned that he can serve as the point of contact and liaison to help
           coordinate such group purchases.




                                                                                       22
4) Final Report / Presentations
         The group discussed the final report and its contents. Various sections were
           divided up; volunteers should post the draft copies of their sections to the list
           by April 21st.

5) Wrap Up




                                                                                           23

								
To top