1. Welcome, Introductions & Apologies for Absence

Present: Elizabeth Chapman (Chair, LSE & interim WAM25 Director), John Gilby (Project Manager), Celia Ayres (Reading), Toby Bainton (SCONUL), Nick Bevan (M25 Consortium Chair), Angus Brown (Imperial), Chris Brown (JISC), Robert Hall (LSBU), Caroline Lloyd (LSHTM), Rosemary Lynch (UCA), Ann Murphy (Greenwich), Stephen Pickles (IOE), John Tuck (M25 Digital Developments Working Group & RHUL)

Apologies: Peter Tinson (UCISA)

Attendees introduced themselves and it was noted that in addition to the Steering Group, other key stakeholders were present to discuss the way forward.

2. Steering Group membership

AC noted that chairing the group had been inherited from her predecessor and sought the group’s view (see under Item 6 below).

3. Action Update & Matters Arising from Last Meeting

From the last meeting held at the LSE on 29 February 2009, all actions had been completed and the minutes were approved.

4. Historical Overview of WAM25

JG gave a brief history of the project from original conception to the current situation of awaiting news from HEFCE about grant funding, and also summarised the current financial arrangements of both promised and realised funds.

TB commented that the SCONUL contribution was a firm commitment should the project go ahead, i.e. that it was not dependent on getting the HEFCE grant.

NB noted that following a recent M25 Steering Group meeting, the Consortium had agreed to make the contingency fund available to the project if that would be of benefit.

5. How Relevant is WAM25 Today

EAC introduced this item seeking views of attendees on whether there was still a need/interest in encouraging and implementing walk-in access to M25 libraries. Comments made included the following:

• Desire to pursue the project
• Libraries still receive many journal requests and with removal of print, there is an even greater need to access electronic
• If WAM25 does not happen, libraries will have to do something and it would likely be quick & easy pragmatic solutions with no consistency between institutions
• The problem is as pressing or more so than in 2006 (when WAM25 was first thought of)
• Users benefit from the Inspire scheme to access journals so situation will worsen with loss of print
• Users seeking walk-in access will be more common with understandable library budget cuts
• Overall view was that there is now a greater need for the project
• Many libraries are so cautious about the possibility of infringing licence restrictions that the safest solution is to not allow access
• Nobody knew of any other body looking at improving walk-in access
• Still a need to take the HAERVI Project to the next stage.

All agreed that we should endeavour to find ways to carry on with the project.

6. Way Forward with Project

EAC led the discussion about how to take the project forward over the next few months. Key points in the discussion included:

• The project cannot be done for less cost than detailed in the HEFCE bid
• Additional funding from partners and other stakeholders present was unlikely but even where possible, would not be anywhere near the amount sought from HEFCE
• All agreed that having less partners in the project would have a minimal cost saving and would also not be good for service promotion/expansion in the future
• May be worth face to face meetings with 2-3 potential alternative funding sources
• Possibly investigate how IT services deal with software licences where only selected users are permitted access to the software to see if anything can be applicable for WAM25

All present agreed that EAC remains as Chair/Project Director for the time being.

Action 6.1 EAC to write to HEFCE to seek status of funding bid on the understanding that having waited over 20 months, we are unable to wait any longer. A deadline to be set on their response.

Action 6.2 EAC to arrange meetings with additional potential funding organisations.

Action 6.3 All to consider what could be done with the funds promised or available should the HEFCE grant not materialise.

7. AOB

There was none.

8. Future Steering Group Arrangements & Action Summary

All agreed to another meeting towards the end of May 2010.

Action Summary:

Action 6.1 EAC to write to HEFCE to seek status of funding bid on the understanding that having waited over 20 months, we are unable to wait any longer. A deadline to be set on their response.

Action 6.2 EAC to arrange meetings with additional potential funding organisations.

Action 6.3 All to consider what could be done with the funds promised or available should the HEFCE grant not materialise.

Action 8.1 JG to arrange next meeting.

Minutes by JG