Minutes of the March 9, 2017 SDLAC Meeting

Statewide Database Licensing Advisory Committee Meeting Oregon State Library – Room 103 March 9, 2017 10:00 am to 3:00 pm

Members present: Chair, Emily Miller-Francisco, Robert Lanxon, Miranda Doyle, Kristen Brodbeck-Kenney, Lynda Irons, Richenda Hawkins, and Amy Hofer.

Members attending via phone: Catherine Jasper and Lisa Tattersall.

Members absent: Marion Mercier, Garnetta Wilker, and Thomas Richards.

Staff present: Arlene Weible and Ferol Weyand

Welcome and Housekeeping Chair, Emily Miller-Francisco called the meeting to order at 10:10. Introductions were made, including new member Richenda Hawkins, who will be the committee’s liaison to the LSTA Advisory Council.

Review of Agenda and Minutes Committee reviewed the agenda and minutes from November 9, 2016 meeting. No changes were made to the agenda, and Irons moved to approve the minutes as presented. Doyle seconded. There were no objections and the motion passed.

Updates on Budget and Current Projects Weible reported that nominations are open for the three committee positions in July. The positions are  Position #1 - Public Library Serving less than 25,000  Position #2 - Academic Library from a public academic institution  Position #3 – School Library drawn from OASL Membership

Brodbeck-Kenney, Miller-Francisco, and Wilker are the members with their terms ending. Weible indicated that nominations for Positions 2 and 3 have already been received, but we may need the committee’s assistance in soliciting nominees for Position 1. Nominations are due on April 7. The new positions’ terms runs from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. It was also noted that Kathi Fountain has left her position at the Orbis Cascade Alliance, so the committee will need to identify a new liaison. Weible will follow up with Alliance staff. The Committee also needs to elect a new chair. Miller-Francisco reviewed the chair’s duties, including working with staff to plan and facilitate meetings and work on the committee’s annual report. Additional work may be necessary this year because of the RFP process. Irons nominated herself, and the committee agreed to appoint her as chair.

Weible gave a brief update on the budget. There are no significant changes to this year’s or next year’s projected budget. After the May LSTA Advisory Council meeting, the budget allocations will be established for the upcoming year after decisions are made about the awards for competitive grants. The State Library has not heard anything definitive about the federal budget’s funding of the LSTA program.

Weible also presented a discussion document State Library staff have created about the development of a central portal, in response to the Committee’s recommendation from last year. The document outlines its purpose, a suggested phased development, system requirements, and possible development scenarios. Staff are gathering additional details about budget and staff resource requirements for each scenario, and will presenting this information to State Library management who will determine next steps.

Weible asked for general feedback from committee. Jasper asked for clarification about the authentication of users. Weible indicated that Geo IP authentication is the preferred method, since it makes access to end users easy. It is not full-proof, so a secondary authentication method will probably be required, and that will depend on vendor requirements and the platform chosen. Staff have contacted other states to get more information about the range of options available.

Hofer inquired about funding for the portal, given the current budget environment. Since most of the development scenarios will require more resources, Weible reported that this could be a challenge and will certainly influence which approach is taken. Tattersall endorsed the multi-phase development approach and agreed flexibility especially given potential funding restraints would be good.

Weible also clarified that libraries would continue to manage their own accounts and provide access to resources from their own web pages, and the central portal would also include pointers back to local libraries. There would likely be some impact on local usage statistics, since usage data from the central portal would not have the granularity to trace usage back to specific libraries. Weible asked that any additional feedback be sent to her via email.

Review of RFP Categories Miller-Francisco started the discussion by indicating that the committee will discuss all of the seven resource categories that have been worked on since the last meeting, but urged members to keep priorities in mind. She also asked that the discussion focus on descriptions and content requirements, as we will discuss other types of system requirements later in the meeting.

Career Resources It is unclear if this category needs to be included since we have a current contract with LearningExpress Library. Weible indicated that it may be administratively helpful to use this RFP to get a new contract that has the same term of service as other resources, but this decision will need to be made between State Library and Procurement staff. In either event, it is helpful to have the language in this category prepared and committee members agreed that this is a high priority resource for the Statewide Database Licensing Program (SDLP) since it has broad usage across all types of libraries.

The committee agreed to refine the language in this category to indicate a preference for Spanish language resources, and other languages would be desirable.

Contemporary Resources Committee members made some editorial suggestions about including the concept of scholarly resources and listing desirable formats such as maps, videos, infographics, and other visual content. No other major changes were suggested.

E-books Miller-Francisco described the problematic nature of this category, since it is based on format and not on topic and the needs are so diverse across each type of library. Committee members agreed to leave the description focused on academic e-books for the time being, but category is one that needs further consideration during priority discussions.

General Periodical Resources Committee members suggested broader language to cover Oregon news sources and consumer sources, since it is known that specific titles are proprietary and not available to all aggregators. Indexing of Oregon news articles would be desirable, even if full text cannot be provided. There were also some editorial suggestions about graphic and image content.

General Reference Resources Committee members discussed the need to break this category in two, one covering reference resources (like GVRL) and the other for a general online encyclopedia (like World Book) product. Weible noted that the previous RFP also lumped these types of products together and it was difficult to evaluate proposals. A separate Reference Resources category could also describe some of the desired e-book content, and thus eliminate the need for a separate E-book category. Committee members also agreed that the primary audience for a general online encyclopedia product would be K-8 users, and content geared toward 9-12 would be desirable but not mandatory.

Lifelong Learning Resources Committee members also discussed the need to break up this category, since the types of resources described (language learning tools and online skill building courses) have distinct features and are offered by different vendors.

Academic Journal Database(s) Committee members made suggestions for evaluation criteria based on OpenURL success rates and the accuracy of holdings data transmitted to discovery services. The quality of resources, not just the number of resources available, needs to be thoroughly assessed.

Finalize Categories to include in RFP Weible explained that the matrix developed to document priorities for categories and audience types will help her work with Procurement staff to structure the RFP to ensure we get proposals that are easier to compare during evaluation. She also hopes that this approach will generate a variety of cost proposals to help evaluate options, since it is unlikely all resources can be funded.

The Committee began the discussion by adjusting the categories list based on the morning discussion. It was also agreed to remove the Career Resources category from this discussion, since the decision to include this category will be made based on administrative needs. Below is the matrix committee members discussed: Category Priority All Audiences? First PrioritySecond Third for RFP Audience Priority Priority Audience Audience Contemporary Issues Resources Academic E- books General Periodical Resources Reference Resources General Online Encyclopedia Language Learning Tool Skills Courses Academic Journal Database(s)

Each committee member was asked to identify their constituency’s highest priority category and the committee’s survey that asked the library community to prioritize categories of resources was also consulted.

Discussion about the E-books category resulted in the decision to list e-book content in both the Reference Resource and Academic Journal Database(s) category as desirable and remove it as a separate category. After assessing public library priorities, the Language Learning Tool category was also removed. After long discussion, the following priority decision were made:

Category Priority All Audiences? First Priority Second Priority for RFP Audience Audience

Contemporary Issues Resources 2 All General 1 All Public/Tribal Periodical Resources Reference Resources 1 All General Online Encyclopedia 1 No School (K-8) Public Skills Courses 2 No Public/Tribal Academic Academic Journal Academic/School Database(s) 1 All (9-12) Public

There will need to be some adjustments to the category overview documents to reflect the changes discussed in the meeting. The following committee members are assigned to each category to further refine language. This work should be completed by April 28, 2017.

Contemporary Issues Resources – Irons & Doyle General Periodical Resources - Brodbeck- Kenney & Tattersall Reference Resources – Jasper, Irons, & Doyle General Online Encyclopedia – Wilker & Doyle Skills Courses – Lanxon & Jasper Academic Journal Databases - Miller-Francisco, Hofer, Irons

RFP evaluation criteria Weible introduced the Database Functionality and Capabilities criteria document that was used in an RFP in Arizona last year. She suggested this was a good approach to communicating with vendors about general requirements common to each category. Committee members discussed possible additions or clarifications, including:

 Users Tools (printing, email/downloading, permalinks, exporting into citation managers, ability to save searches between sessions)  Integration with learning management systems such as Google Apps for Education (widely used in schools in Oregon)  OpenURL linking to the article level  Compatibility with discovery services, particularly Primo/Alma, since it is widely used in Oregon.  ADA compatibility  Replace language about mobile devices with preference for responsive design  Preference for full text in PDF format  Must have IP recognition as authentication option  Must have accurate title lists and information about how that information is transmitted to discovery service providers.  Add a column for “Not Acceptable”

Miller-Francisco and Weible agreed to edit the document and send it back to the committee for review by mid-April. It was also suggested that committee members think about this kind of matrix (Not Acceptable, Less Desirable, Acceptable, and Desirable) as they further refine the criteria language in the category overview document.

Upcoming Meeting Schedule The Committee reviewed the RFP timeline and discussed the need for upcoming meetings. Since there will be three new committee members in July, it was decided to have a meeting during the summer to orient new members and also review the status of RFP development. This meeting would be optional for existing members.

The next full committee meeting will need to be in September or October in order to finalize the RFP in time to have it published in November. Weible will schedule this immediately after the new committee members are appointed in May, even though their terms will not begin until July. There will also likely be multiple meetings from January-March 2018 as proposal are evaluated, so committee members should be prepared.

Action items:  Weible will contact the Orbis Cascade Alliance to identify a new liaison for the Committee.

 Committee members should send any additional feedback about the Central Portal discussion document to Weible by the end of March.

 Committee members will edit the Category Overview documents to reflect discussion today’s meeting by April 28, 2017.  Weible and Miller - Francisco will edit the Database Functionality and Capabilities document and will send it out to the committee for further review by mid-April.

 Weible will schedule an optional summer meeting and a regular fall meeting soon after new committee members are appointed in May.

Weible thanked outgoing Chair Miller-Francisco for her leadership of the committee over the last year. Thanks were also conveyed to outgoing members Brodbeck-Kenney and Wilker. Meeting was adjourned at 3:02 pm