**Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries**

**Discussion Group\
(Big Heads)**

**[Minutes]{.underline}**

Number range CHAPTER**ALA Midwinter Meeting, San Antonio, Texas**

**Friday, January 20, 2006, 9:30 a.m.-12:30 pm**

**Marriott Riverwalk, Salon D**

**Recorded by Angela Kinney, Library of Congress
(HREF=\"mailto:(anki@loc.gov)\"**

**The Big Heads web site established by Library of Congress is at:**
HREF=\"http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads\"

# Agenda

### In attendance 

**Karen Calhoun: chair (Cornell University)**

**Beth Picknally Camden (University of Pennsylvania)**

**Mechael Charbonneau (Indiana University)**

**Cynthia Clark (New York Public Library)**

**Chris Cole (National Agricultural Library)**

**Katharine Treptow Farrell (Princeton University)**

**Robin Fradenburgh (University of Texas at Austin)**

**Lisa German (Pennsylvania State University)**

**Nancy Gibbs (Duke University)**

**Peggy Johnson (University of Minnesota)**

**Arno Kastner (New York University)**

**Joe Kiegel (University of Washington)**

**Lee Leighton (University of California at Berkeley)**

**Dianne McCutcheon (National Library of Medicine)**

**James Mouw (University of Chicago)**

**Jane Ouderkirk (Harvard University)**

**Jane Penner (University of Virginia)**

**Sally Rogers (Ohio State University)**

**Cynthia Shelton (University of California at Los Angeles)**

**Jim Stickman (University of Washington)**

**Joan Swanekamp (Yale University)**

**Catherine Tierney (Stanford University)**

**Beacher Wiggins (Library of Congress)**

**Lynn Wiley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)**

## John Wilkin (University of Michigan)

**Robert Wolven (Columbia University)**

**Margaretta Yarborough (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)**

**Irene Zimmerman (University of Wisconsin-Madison)**

**Angela Kinney: recorder (Library of Congress)**

**Isabella Marques de Castilla: assisting with logistics (Library of
Congress)**

Number range CHAPTER**1. Welcome, introductions, and announcements
(Karen Calhoun, chair and the group (10 minutes))**

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** welcomed the attendees and asked
that all Big Heads members introduce themselves for the purpose of
accurately recording the minutes. Karen noted that Isabella Marques de
Castilla **(Library of Congress)** was in attendance, assisting Big
Heads with handling logistics for the meeting.

Karen Calhoun announced that she has been in touch with Jennifer Bowen
**(University of Rochester)**, who represents the American Library
Association on the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), the group that is
leading the effort to update RDA (Resource Description and Access), the
successor to AACR2. Bowen will attend the Big Heads meeting at ALA
Annual 2006 in New Orleans and will give another update on the status of
RDA. For more information on Bowen's previous update to Big Heads, see
the minutes of the ALA Annual 2005 meeting at:
<http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads/bigheads-june05.html>. At present
JSC is gathering comment on Part I of RDA. The review period for Part I
will continue until March 1, 2006. Karen Calhoun noted that the draft of
Part I takes a more aggressive approach towards a new content standard.

**2. Vendor records for acquisitions and cataloging. Pricing models,
workflows, value, and impact on OCLC/RLG (Karen Calhoun and the group,
25 minutes)**

On the topic of using vendor records for acquisitions and cataloging,
Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** stated that there is much
activity in this area as libraries attempt to streamline workflows, do
more with less, and look at other options for getting cataloging copy. A
model that has emerged recently is an initiative to develop a
cooperative cataloging relationship with the Italian vendor Casalini
Libri, that may result in an impact on shared cataloging systems such as
WorldCat and the RLG database. Karen Calhoun asked if there was any news
from **Library of Congress** on this initiative to outsource with
Casalini Libri.

Beacher Wiggins said that **Library of Congress** is in negotiations
with the Italian vendor Casalini Libri to obtain a shelf-ready
cataloging product, something LC has not done before. This outsourcing
of cataloging is necessary because the Library of Congress needs to meet
its mandate to provide qualitative, timely cataloging while refurbishing
recent staff losses. Seventy employees in the cataloging directorate at
LC took advantage of a retirement incentive offered in the fall of 2005,
and the loss of seasoned catalogers from that decision by the Library of
Congress has created gaps in staffing where critical language skills are
needed.

LC is in ongoing discussions with Casalini Libri to ascertain whether
they can supply shelf-ready records, and has worked out an agreement
whereby Casalini Libri has been trained to create bibliographic records
and perform authority control. Casalini has joined the Name Authority
Cooperative (NACO) of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) and
the authority records they create are now available for use by other
libraries. There is, however, general concern among Casalini Libri
customers about the availability of the bibliographic records produced
by Casalini for LC. Wiggins said that initially in looking at a business
model that could sustain Casalini as a viable vendor and allow LC and
Casalini's customers who are comprised of major U.S. libraries to meet
their commitment as deliverers of bibliographic resources, there were
complications in devising a pricing model that would be satisfactory to
all stakeholders. There were also questions in discussions with Casalini
about the role of the utilities OCLC and RLG in this scheme. LC's fiscal
2006 agreement with Casalini not to distribute bibliographic records
produced by the vendor under the current contract has caused
consternation in the library community and among Casalini's customers.
Wiggins asserted that LC understands this and the implications of this
decision for the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. Wiggins asserted
that LC saw this move as helping to get the community engaged in new
cataloging models that would be sustainable for the future, and never
contemplated the issue of non-redistribution of these records as a
permanent situation.

Wiggins continued by saying that the Library of Congress plans to have
several forums with Big Heads directors and Casalini to discuss the
redistribution issue. He announced that recently there was a
breakthrough in the topic of redistribution when OCLC and Casalini
reached a cooperative agreement. OCLC will now partner with Casalini by
purchasing records that will be available in the OCLC utility. LC will
continue to work on an agreement with Casalini to make records produced
for LC by the vendor available in the public utilities. In FY06, LC
expects to get 3000-4000 records with authority data from Casalini and
will be making a fuller announcement in the near future on what the
agreement with OCLC and Casalini means for distributing these records.

Karen Calhoun invited Glenn Patton seated in the audience **(OCLC)** to
comment on the contract with Casalini Libri. Patton replied that the
agreement OCLC has with Casalini spans the same period of time as the
arrangement with Library of Congress, starting October 2005 and ending
September 2006. Casalini has started working with OCLC to get the
records loaded.

Jane Ouderkirk **(Harvard University)** said her institution has engaged
in a cooperative cataloging project with Harrassowitz, but the German
vendor will be delivering a simpler catalog record. Harvard is
particularly interested in Harrassowitz providing German and English
keywords in the 653 field as well as series access. Harvard is using
Z39.50 to capture catalog records from the German national catalog to
process its German backlog and they will also use Bookwhere software to
search for copy in the Gottingen University Library catalog.

Cynthia Shelton **(UCLA)** asked Ouderkirk about the pricing model
Harvard agreed upon with Harrassowitz. Harvard agreed to pay
Harrassowitz \$4 U.S. per record for 653 keyword subject cataloging,
which may allow lower level staff at Harvard to complete the remainder
of the cataloging. The keywords also support enhanced access while the
books are in the backlog.

Catherine Tierney said that **Stanford University** began a
reengineering project in 1990. Stanford contracted with Yankee Book
Peddler to have them provide nearly 100% of its materials shelf-ready,
including adequate records for the catalog. The resulting streamlined
workflow allowed Stanford to assign process savings to staffing in a
variety of digital initiatives across the library. Tierney expects that
in the near future Stanford will likely contract for cataloging for
Japanese and Chinese materials. She hopes that libraries can come up
with dramatic new models to pay for vendor catalog records. She
maintained that it is time for radical change and that there are lots of
savings to be had from the processing end.

Ouderkirk added that the cost of managing Harvard's backlog is \$400,000
a year. That is money that can be used for providing faster access to
users.

Lynn Wiley said that the **University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign**
signed on to vendor cataloging with some trepidation, but decided it was
worth trying. Her institution decided it will participate in the
LC/Casalini pricing model for a year. She encouraged other libraries who
do business with Casalini to participate by ferreting out money for this
project. She said that fund managers at her institution have some
reservations, but it is her hope that in the end, this effort will
provide much better service to users.

Karen Calhoun asked for a show of hands from Big Heads directors who
were interested in participating in the pricing model. Eleven directors
responded in the affirmative.

Jim Mouw **(University of Chicago)** agreed that if the flow of
acceptable vendor copy were interrupted, it would be a problem. He was
equally concerned about a sustainable pricing model that would promote
resource sharing, but also serve patrons who are dependent on those
records being in the utilities every day.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** added that a large part of the cost
needed to pay for the Casalini records is the authority work and that
may be the key issue. He asked what Big Heads is willing to pay for
authority work and whether it is necessary to have a book in hand to do
authority work. He also queried whether Big Heads libraries should be
looking at a selective model for doing authority work and subject
analysis.

Katharine Farrell said **Princeton University** will acquire the
Casalini records for one year, but has no flexibility to do this again
with another vendor. Arno Kastner **(New York University)** asked if all
Big Heads libraries that have signed up for the Casalini pricing model
are getting a shelf-ready record with no review. Farrell said
**Princeton** does review the records, but does not do lots of editing.
Editing is done as part of the acquisitions process. Item records are
created for the books and they are subsequently placed on the shelves.
Mouw said that at **University of Chicago** records from Casalini go
through a process where binding is done on receipt. The review process
is machine based, where the ISBN and call numbers are automatically
checked.

Cynthia Clark said staff at **New York Public Library** must insert a
classification number in the records because her library has different
classification schemes, so a review of the record is necessary. Peggy
Johnson responded that **University of Minnesota** does not check all
elements of cataloging records from Casalini. Staff do a spot check
only. Bob Wolven said 50% of records in **Columbia University's**
database are from outside libraries. Columbia University does batch
modifications on data loads, but does not look at records for review for
many thousands of records.

Beacher Wiggins **(Library of Congress)** said now that Casalini's
cataloging is at a proficient level, LC will only be reviewing 10% of
the vendor's bibliographic records. Casalini has also been declared
independent for certain categories of name authority work. Wiggins
announced that LC is also looking at a small pilot project with the
Japanese vendor Kinokuniya to license Japanese records. Wiggins affirmed
that agreements with other vendors will not be the same as that for
Casalini. The reason LC is reaching out to other vendors to outsource is
because of dwindling staff to cover certain languages. Joan Swanekamp
commented that **Yale University** is not yet committed and is wresting
with issues of sustainability, but she believes that her institution
would benefit from Casalini records.

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** summarized the discussion by
stating that Big Heads libraries appear to be most interested in the
sustainability of the pricing model and value of the cataloging product
offered by Casalini. She suggested that what the group has not touched
on much is the role of national bibliographic agencies. Calhoun asked if
there was interest in a discussion at the ALA Annual 2006 conference on
the role of national bibliographic agencies. All agreed that this would
be a good topic for discussion.

**3. Participating in the Google Book Search project: report from the
field. A guided discussion of questions/issues that have arisen as a
result of participation in the project (John Wilkin and Catherine
Tierney, University of Michigan and Stanford University, 30 minutes)**

Catherine Tierney **(Stanford University)** gave an overview of
Stanford's mass digitization project with Google. Tierney's webpage at
Stanford describes the parameters of the project at:

[www.stanford.edu/people/\~ctierney/BHGoogle012006.html]{.underline}.The
objective is to control mass movement of volumes to the offsite vendor
for scanning. Stanford intends to send everything to Google as fast as
they can, but there are factors that constrain. Books are pulled from
shelves and placed on carts, vacuumed, barcodes wanded into laptops or
scanners and a daily file of barcodes is created by project staff. The
Systems Department pulls the metadata for each barcode and sends them to
Google. That file also feeds batch charges to a pseudo patron with a due
date. In the OPAC, the items appear as the standard "checked out." The
books are delivered to the Google facility a few miles away, are then
scanned and returned to Stanford, where they are discharged by hand and
reshelved. Some materials sent to Google get trucked to Stanford's
offsite storage facility.

One of the lessons learned is that there is a small percentage of things
staff encounter that must be resolved, but the project is going well so
far. All materials must be barcoded and linked. Stanford has barcoded
all of its collections, but did not catch all books, so the percentage
of unbarcoded books is slightly higher than the 3% anticipated. Stanford
is now dealing with getting those books barcoded. Another problem
discovered when having the books scanned by Google are books with two
different barcodes on different pages, or problems with the wrong
barcode linked to a bibliographic record. These problems were found
after the books were shipped to Google and must be resolved by
cataloging staff at Stanford. Stanford periodically sends Google a file
of these new records.

Second to the problem of barcoding is how to deal with multiple
bibliographic entities bound together (i.e. bound-withs), since Stanford
is only providing Google with metadata for the parent item. Stanford has
yet to figure out an automated method to identify and pull child
records, so that they can be provided with the parent records. Stanford
began the mass digitization project with Google working on U.S.
Congressional Hearings, the most used items that were barcoded first and
are all bound. These materials presented scanning issues because of
their different typefaces.

John Wilkin said that **University of Michigan** is also participating
in the mass digitization project and has come up with a similar problem
of the same barcode representing more than one book. University of
Michigan found the problem in one unit and has resolved this issue.
Specifically, Michigan's special collections department re-used a card
with a single barcode, moving it from volume to volume as they catalog,
and thus resulting in the same barcode being in several volumes.

Wilkin also emphasized the importance of archiving data. Staff at his
institution will get a first iteration of University of Michigan's
archive that will be out in Spring 2006. University of Michigan has
previously built large digital library systems for this type of
material. However, Michigan is uncomfortable with the scaling issue and
believes it was important to start from scratch with expectations
designed around millions of volumes. Michigan feels it important to
leverage its OCAT for access, building a repository where records in the
OPAC point to a Uniform Resource Name (URN), which points to a page
turner that in turn consults a database for authorization. The page
turner draws on the OPAC to get information. The assumption is that the
record with a single link that leads to a single digitized object is not
a reality. Sometimes there are multiple instantiations, and often there
are multiple volumes associated with a bibliographic entity. Wilkin
pointed out that there may also be different rights associated with
different versions of the same piece.

Wilkin distributed a handout of sample screens to illustrate a project
where Michigan is using URNs to point to multiple versions when only one
volume exists. The handout illustrated multiple holdings for the same
item and an approach where the barcode in the item record is used for
tracking and data exchange. Wilkin maintains that having something in
records that traces to the digitized document is valuable. The barcode
in the item record is "borrowed" to be used as a digital optical
identifier (DOID), which is also resolvable in Google. The DOID is
copied to the item record and the URL displays dynamically from the
DOID. This approach allows University of Michigan to point to multiple
volumes and versions of items. If needed, this information can also be
used to generate separate bibliographic records. The disadvantage is
that this method is very system specific (i.e., in this case, Aleph).

Wilkin raised the question of how the library community can develop a
better system of standards to move away from the 856 field to access
multiple digital objects and leverage data in OPACS. A system that
generates separate records for every volume will cause problems such as
not showing completeness versus incompleteness. Wilkin said that this
pilot project has gone well so far and will go through an evaluation
before it is rolled out to the public.

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** opened the discussion to others.
Catherine Tierney **(Stanford University)** said her institution is
taking a different approach. In Stanford's OPAC there is a link to a
secondary database where multiple versions of sources of digitized
content are managed. Patrons see a single link that sends them to an
area where they can pick volumes they want. Jane Ouderkirk **(Harvard
University)** said her institution is doing the same. Bob Wolven said
**Columbia University** is managing scanned tables of contents for items
in offsite storage built on barcodes as object identifiers. He asserted
that universal ISSN and ISBNs would make linking simpler.

Lynn Wiley from **University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign** said she
comes from a background of access services and was curious as to how
many libraries are having discussions with institutions that are
encountering problems with moving items to offsite storage facilities.
Catherine Tierney said **Stanford University** just started offsite
storage and has a heightened sensitivity about what they do and do not
have in their collections. Cynthia Shelton **(University of California
at Los Angeles)** added that for those following the Open Content
Alliance (<http://www.opencontentalliance.org/>), an initiative to build
a repository of multilingual digitized text and multimedia content, it
might be useful to track hitches encountered so others can analyze the
risk and challenges. Shelton asked if Tierney and Wilkin use current
staff for the Google mass digitization project. Tierney responded that
the Google project overlaps managers' jobs more than regular staff.
Separate staff are hired to do the daily book moves. Wilkin replied that
**University of Michigan** does not review materials that go to Google.
Google is more conservative about the condition of the materials.
Michigan has just added shelving staff paid for by Google and probably
has 900,000 items that lack barcodes.

Cynthia Clark said that **New York Public Library**, also a member of
the project, is using its own staff and is still in the pilot phase.
NYPL has managers helping to get the project initiated, with Google not
paying for anything. Jim Mouw said **University** **of Chicago** is
interested in how non-Google institutions can benefit form this work.
Tierney responded that the Google 5 are talking with OCLC and RLG about
the utilities' mechanisms to include links either to Google or G5 hosted
content. She said that Google has a way to go to pull together data in a
way that would be helpful to other institutions.

**4. E-resource management systems. Integration with local library
systems, workflows, manpower requirements, effectiveness, and early
experience from implementers. Who has these systems up and running (or
close to it) and how is it going? Are users coming out ahead on service
as we expected they would? Are labor costs for managing e-resources
lower as a result of these systems? (Karen Calhoun and the group, 25
minutes)**

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** introduced this topic by
asserting that many libraries are in the process of implementing
e-resources management systems, but wondered whether implementers'
expectations for improving services and reducing costs are being
realized. Jim Mouw **(University of Chicago)** asked for a show of hands
as to how many Big Heads libraries have e-resources systems already in
production from commercial vendors. Four hands were raised for systems
in full production, eleven are in the process of implementing systems
and nine are thinking about it. Six responded that they had in house
data systems in place.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** responded that his institution is
using a system called Meridien with Endeavor that is in production. The
data however is only used by a few and Columbia is still learning how to
use the system. The advantages in cost savings he maintains are that
people waste less time finding out the status of a resource, because
Meridien draws acquisitions data from Voyager. Implementation of the
system has not been long enough for Columbia to do a real assessment
just yet.

Karen Calhoun noted that **Cornell University** implemented an
Innovative Interfaces ERM system in March 2005 to serve e-journals to
the public. Cornell is still in the process of getting licensing
information into the system. The system was purchased to assist staff to
know what e-resources they could use and the rights to those services.
Cornell is finding that licensing information is hard to track down.

Sally Rogers said **Ohio State University** is using the Innovative ERM
system and has been in production since March 2005. Ohio State uses
default information for all records as far as rights data are concerned.
Public services staff are not satisfied with how the system works
because of the additional clicks necessary to get to databases. All
databases at Ohio State are now generated out of the Innovative ERM
system. Users must look at the licensing information before they can
proceed to the databases. Ohio State will continue to keep financial
information in order records. Patricia Davis is the contact for more
information on this project.

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** posed a hypothetical\--that in
five years the ERM will replace the ILS\--and asked what the group
thought of that. Beth Picknally Camden **(University of Pennsylvania)**
responded that she was not sure if the ERM will replace the ILS, but she
maintains that purchasing patterns will soon change, so that
institutions will begin to buy modular parts that match their needs,
rather than systems. Joan Swanekamp responded that **(Yale University)**
has purchased an ERM with Ex Libris and will implement the system in
April 2006. The **University of Washington** uses the Innovative ERM
according to Jim Stickman, and the library's next large scale project
will be to do a comprehensive capture of licensing data. He agreed that
the ERM is going to become much more important with time. One of the
issues facing institutions is staff training, and getting staff outside
of collections management and acquisitions involved.

Nancy Gibbs **(Duke University)** asked Calhoun if **Cornell
University** is renegotiating licenses. Calhoun replied that Cornell
does plan to renegotiate some licenses because they want to further
leverage their investment in e-resources. Jim Mouw **(University of
Chicago)** commented that his institution is grappling with how many
resources are covered by the same license when the terms of the license
change.

Cynthia Clark said that **New York Public Library Research Libraries**
have

implemented an Innovative module. Their situation is unique because the

Branch Libraries will also use the ERM module, so all licensing
information

is in one place. NYPL also has created an e-resources librarian. They
have

yet to figure out any cost savings, but the work of gathering data for

e-resources is now coordinated better. NYPL is looking at support staff

that will be needed later. Currently there is a database that displays
the

e-resources on NYPL\'s website.

Chris Cole added that the **National Agricultural Library** negotiates
licensing rights directly with publishers, but licenses e-resources only
to the USDA's 112,000 users. NAL is particularly interested in collating
financial data. This is especially important for NAL, as it acts as lead
negotiator and receives funds from other agencies in the USDA, so having
funding information in one database is beneficial. Jim Mouw
**(University of Chicago)** noted that there is a new group formed out
of Editeur and NISO, which is working towards a method to take Digital
Library Federation documents and turn them into a transition set to
collocate licensing information and populate systems.

Dianne McCutcheon of the **National Library of Medicine** said her
institution has purchased the Meridian ERMS, but has not yet installed
it. NLM has bought print versions of journals thru major subscription
agents and would like to do licenses through subscription dealers, but
has not taken that step yet. Karen Calhoun noted that **Cornell
University** has quite a few licenses with language ready for public
exposure, although users still have to click several times to get to
information about what can really be done with the title. Sally Rogers
said the only licensing rights information **Ohio State University**
maintains has to do with reference databases and not e-journals.

Beth Picknally Camden **(University of Pennsylvania)** asked about what
levels of staff were entering licensing data and where staff are needed
to support this effort. Sally Rogers responded that **Ohio State
University** hired electronic resources librarians and has an
experienced librarian to assist in getting data into the system. Calhoun
said **Cornell University** operates the same and additionally has a
button on its website for "trouble connecting," so that staff serve both
a public service and management function.

Katharine Treptow Farrell said **Princeton University** pulled in
licensing data from four to five different sources and loaded it, but
that the data is difficult to de-dup. Princeton is now finding two
records for one thing and none for something else. Princeton is starting
to think about defining a position in technical services focused on
management of e-resources systems and is looking at higher level support
staff positions on the acquisitions side to do this. Jim Mouw
**(University of Chicago)** asked if anyone had examples of a good
public display that could be shared with his institution. He pondered
whether the public really uses these ERM displays and looks at
restriction information. **Cornell University,** according to Karen
Calhoun, makes this data available mostly for its staff.

Lisa German added that **Pennsylvania State University** is looking to
redeploy staff, and asked how libraries facilitate moving from a
traditional technical services environment that is not viable anymore.
Lynn Wiley **(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign),** who is in
an interim position of director for cataloging that Lisa German formerly
held, said that skills sets of staff, an aging workforce and budget
problems hamper the ability to reengineer staff. Catherine Tierney
commented that **Stanford University** has combined its acquisitions and
serials departments and has made big shifts in responsibilities to meet
the transition to capturing electronic data. Stanford used to have an
equal amount of acquisitions and cataloging staff. Now the shift has
been to have more acquisitions staff than cataloging. A large number of
staff in acquisitions at Stanford has been picking up the front end
responsibilities (i.e. copy cataloging) previously performed by
cataloging staff. Stanford is learning from earlier models that they
want to spread the wealth over more than one person and must have
multiple people to perform the same function.

Cynthia Shelton said UCLA has combined serials with acquisitions staff
and now has higher level staff where the pay level is going up as the
work gets more complex with e-resources processing. UCLA plans to
institutionalize and beef up copyright management support. Shelton is
investigating a unit to handle electronic acquisitions, bringing in
different staff from various units with varied expertise.

**Break 11:00-11:15 (approximate)**

**5. Report on Janus conference
(<http://www.library.cornell.edu/janusconference/).> Opportunity for
input from the group to the Chief Collection Development Officers of
Large Research Libraries (CCDO), whose agenda will be devoted to
discussion of the 6 key challenges from the Janus conference
(<http://janusconference.library.cornell.edu/?p=49).> (Cindy Shelton,
UCLA, 30 minutes)**

Cynthia Shelton reported on the "Janus Conference on Research
Collections: Managing the Shifting Ground Between Writers and Readers,"
sponsored by **Cornell University** October 9-11, 2005. The purpose of
the conference was to look at the rationale for collection development
in its present state and examine its purpose for the future in the
rapidly changing information environment. As a result of the conference,
six working groups were formed to examine the current challenges in
collection development. Shelton noted that the last time collection
development librarians met together in a formal conference to look at
this issue was twenty-five years ago. After the challenges were
presented at the conference, the group went into a four-hour breakout
session to discuss the six points. Chief collection development
librarians met at ALA Midwinter 2006 to go over these challenges and
plan future actions. Shelton stated that the collection development
librarians will need to get a response to these strategies and will need
to discuss who will head the effort to take this forward outside of Big
Heads.

Calhoun asked Shelton what other groups might be discussing the Janus
challenges and follow up work. At present, there is no current
infrastructure to carry this initiative forward. The group will need to
identify a research agenda that will give evidence needed to support
taking up these strategies. The group will also need timelines and
deadlines for carrying out the strategies. Shelton opened the discussion
for reactions to content in the strategies and said that she would take
any questions back to the collection development librarians. The six
strategies (challenges) include: 1) Recon: converting scholarly record
in an effort to digitize all print content for research libraries,
collaborating on a materials budget. 2) Procon, ensure objects published
in future are available in digital form, provided research libraries
agree to shift to e-resources publishing, 3) Build a core collection, an
effort to define and collaborate on a core collection with the help of a
national committee, 4) licensing principles (formerly publisher
relations), which involves confronting and solving licensing issues, 5)
development of sustainable print and digital archiving, and 6) scholarly
communication, specifically for institutions to define and take
responsibility for subject specific institutional repositories and
invest capital needed to develop those.

Brian Schottlaender **(University of California at San Diego)**
commented from the audience that on the issue of who should be at the
table for these discussions, he recommended that representatives from
OCLC, ARL, CRL, and RLG be included. Peggy Johnson **(University of
Minnesota)** said she is interested to see if this topic is picked up by
other larger groups. Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** said he is
encouraged and glad that this is going on and that the challenges
identified in the conference are similar to what all institutions are
facing. Wolven stated that everyone should be paying attention because
collection development drives what Big Heads directors are hired to do.
This effort should be coordinated in a direct rather than reactive
fashion.

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** said that in spite of many
factors driving libraries to share collections such as with the Google
book search project, people in the Janus conference still found it
difficult to imagine their library buildings being redesigned as a
different space. She maintained that library buildings are being used
more now for shared community space and that there are new areas for
growth in reference if we push data and people out into community. She
said the changes happening in OPACs will push libraries to form more
group catalogs, and that may impact the current model of having the
utilities and thousands of copies of the same records sitting out in
various libraries.

Cynthia Shelton **(UCLA)** said she would like to see Big Heads and
collections development librarians have a joint meeting on this topic.
Lisa German **(Pennsylvania State University)** said that ACRL's heads
of public services might also want to be at the table. They have vision
and new ideas that can contribute to the discussion. Shelly Phillips
**(University of Arizona)**, an audience member, suggested that users
from the general public be included. She encouraged the group to do
analysis on why it is so difficult to think beyond our institutions. Why
are we thinking separately instead of as a group? What is in our
institutional structures to keep us from working cooperatively? Cynthia
Clark **(New York Public Library),** who also attended the Janus
Conference, said she chalks up the conservative reaction to individuals
not feeling they could speak for their institutions, and feels the
conversation should go back to the institutions themselves.

Mechael Charbonneau **(Indiana University)** asked whether there would
be an analysis of the core collection. Peggy Johnson **(University of
Minnesota)** answered that she was in a small group that engaged in this
topic, where the focus was that libraries are building the same core
collections. The group pondered the question of whether institutions can
put together a small group that can collect for the group and collect
what is unique to each institution.

**6. Retooling staff. What is the future of acquisitions staffing? Staff
members "armed with a browser and a credit card" are moving away from
lower level data entry work. There is new emphasis on faster turnaround
time and a variety of options for delivering materials to users. How are
these changes affecting what we need acquisitions and other technical
services staff members to know and be able to do? (Katharine Farrell,
Princeton, 25 minutes)**

Big Heads decided to hold this topic for ALA Annual 2006.

**7. Big Heads housekeeping. 2006 is the TS Big Heads membership
evaluation year. What needs to be accomplished and who will undertake
this work? (Katharine Farrell, chair-elect, 20 minutes)**

Katharine Treptow Farrell reported that Big Heads needs to take a look
at its membership based on the 2000 report that outlined membership
criteria. The report suggested that this be done every three years prior
to the ALA Annual Conference, so changes would take place following the
annual meeting. The last time the membership was examined was in 2004.
Criteria for membership is based on ARL's rankings by institution
including: 1) the number of volumes added; 2) the number of current
serials; 3) gross expenditure; and 4) total number of staff. The report
was put together by five members of the Big Heads group. Farrell
suggested that the most productive approach is to have a small group
look at the configuration of the membership again. She noted that Big
Heads does not currently have an ARL member, even though the criteria
for membership is based on ARL rankings. Big Heads decided to have a
small subcommittee look into this, including Robin Fradenburgh
**(University of Texas at Austin)**, Beth Picknally Camden **(University
of Pennsylvania)**, Lee Leighton **(University of California at
Berkeley)** and Lisa German **(Pennsylvania State University).** Lisa
German will chair the committee.

**8. Other topics; suggestions for the next agenda (time permitting)**

There were no other topics or suggestions for agenda items for the next
meeting.