Resource Discovery Meeting Minutes

1. Welcome, Apologies for Absence and Membership Update

Present: William Marsterson (Chair - WM), Gavin Beattie (GB), Sarah Crofts (SC), John Gilby (Minutes - JG), Robert Hall (RH), Maureen Wade (MWa).

Apologies: Stewart Brownrigg (SB), Gurdish Sandhu (GS), Rosemary Lynch (RL), Marcus Woolley (MWo).

It was noted that the September 2008 meeting had been cancelled due to members' unavailability.

2. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

The minutes from 17 July 2008 were approved.

3. Action Update and Matters Arising

Progress on actions from the previous meeting held on 17 July 2008 and earlier meetings are summarised below.

Previous meeting:

Action 5.1 All to provide input to the InforM25 Review Wiki brief - some progress but action superceded - see under Item 6 below.

Actions from earlier meetings:

JG to progress InforM25 'Landscaping' document - Action continues.
JG to look into the Talis Directory further and also about the feasibility of using the existing Find-a-library data/system with Google Maps - Action continues.
MWa & JG to draft letter to RCN about the addition of their Z-server to InforM25 - Action continues.

4. M25 Support Staff Reorganisation

JG updated the group regarding the new support team arrangements. A lot of work had been done over the summer and more recently in establishing the M25 Support Team, not least the unplanned moving of the cpd25 office from Westminster to LSE. The LSE Library was agreeable to hosting the larger M25 team and this arrangement will be confirmed in writing. Highlights include:

• New job descriptions for administrators following cpd25 resignation
• cpd25 office moved and temporary administrator arranged and trained
• M25 SG agree funding web services post for 2 years full time
• cpd25 and Web Service Project Officer posts currently being advertised
• New financial procedures agreed

5. M25 Support Team Manager's Report

JG had created a summary of "M25 Support Team InforM25 Tasks" document based on the earlier Systems Team Service Delivery Plan but only including tasks relevant to resource discovery. The document records detailed tasks carried out in connection with running the InforM25 services. This summary was accepted by the group and future Manager's status reports should be against this document.

JG had previously circulated a report in line with the proposed summary and there were no queries arising from it.

AIM25 Progress

The stand-alone software module for Z39.50 searching the AIM25 service is fully functional. Work to incorporate this module within the live InforM25 Search-catalogues service is almost complete and testing is expected to be carried out in the next day or two.

WAM25 Progress

No further news from HEFCE regarding the outcome of the report/bid submitted in June 2008 for funding for stage 2 of the project.

Usage Statistics Discussion

JG tabled graphs on InforM25 usage derived from statistics gathered by Google Analytics. Notable points from the graphs included:

• ULS and Search-catalogues each showing over 100 visits per week for the autumn term
• Author/Title is the most popular search type at 55%
• 15% of searches are Standard Identifier, probably most from link resolvers
• 62% of searches are across all available catalogues
• In excess of 20% of searchers use the three M25 zones to select which catalogues to search
• Nearly 60% of visitors to the ULS come from link resolvers

WM commented that InforM25 appears to be a product that is of interest as intended, and from a number of sources (direct, via link resolvers, other institutions' websites, etc.). GB suggested that searches arising from link resolvers work well so maybe a targeted promotion could be carried out to ensure InforM25 was included in all M25 institutions' link resolvers.

The group agreed that for future reporting on usage of InforM25:

• to be done approximately quarterly
• produce updates to the graphs for visits per week for each service and for InforM25 overall
• produce quarterly graphs for i) Search-catalogue search types and catalogue selection, ii) ULS visit sources

The group recorded its thanks to David Puplett for carrying out the Google Analytics work.

Action 5.1 JG to:
a) add the graphs to the InforM25 website,
b) look at the original Webalizer statistics for Find-a-library and the ULS, to compare figures
c) look into the link resolver traffic to see which M25 institutions are not listed
d) to create a graph for Search-catalogues traffic sources
e) compare Search-catalogue search type statistics with Copac and the LSE catalogue

6. External Review of InforM25 and Collection Description Service Idea

WM introduced this item as the group have responsibility for arranging an external review of InforM25 during this academic year. The following bullets summarise issues arising during the discussion that could form the basis of a brief:

• Usage statistics show InforM25 is a useful and used service and maybe the review should look at the technology and software underpinning the service
• Bring in the issue of difficulty with software maintenance with limited available skills & resources
• Need to bring in potential developments such as WAM25 and an M25 collection description service cross-searcher
• Look at InforM25 in the context of the original aims of M25 Link, the Consortium and what is now available through services such as Copac and SUNCAT. (Is what's being done worth doing and if so, how or using what technology)
• Review to be a desk survey rather than seeking specific feedback from users and librarians
• Review to include an element of testing InforM25 and similar services to compare and contrast, unique selling points, advantages and disadvantages, etc..
• Bring in usage statistics, especially traffic arising from link resolvers, and InforM25 being used as the next step for users after their own catalogues and local resources
• Scan current information environment - a high level review of relevance

Ideally the brief should be finalised by the end of December ready for tendering in the New Year.

Action 6.1 JG and GB  to draft brief for circulation the the rest of the group.

Action 6.2 All to input ideas for potential consultants to approach with the brief.

7. AOB

There was none.

8. Future Meetings

Action 8.1 Future meetings to be confirmed by JG.

Minutes by JG