M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries: InforM25 Review

At its July 2011 meeting, the Steering Group of the M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries received the Inform25 Review which was completed in June 2011. The Steering Group expressed thanks to all those involved in the compilation of the report, in particular John Gilby and Andrew Amato from the M25 Support Team and Bethan Adams, the Steering Group champion.

Various options were defined in the Report, including Decommission, Do Nothing, Do Nothing Plus, Short term `Low Hanging Fruit’ improvements, Inform25 Plus (see below) and Megalib25 (see below). The Steering Group considered these options, noting their application to the two separate areas of  Search Catalogues and Union List of Serials services (SC/ULS) and Find A Library and Visit a Library services (FAL/VAL).

In both cases, the Steering Group agreed that there is enough evidence to suggest very strongly that the services are still needed and that the Decommission and Do Nothing options were not appropriate and could be dismissed. With particular reference to the FAL/VAL services, it was noted that these are well-used and are particularly important to the non-HEFCE members of the Consortium. It was also agreed that the more extensive, expansive and expensive InforM25 and Megalib options could not be considered at the present time due to the need for significant levels of funding as well as further scoping and costing.

It was agreed, therefore, to proceed to implementation of the ‘low hanging fruit’ options in both cases, together with consideration of the merging of the SC and ULS services. For purposes of definition, ‘low-hanging fruit’ in this context is defined as some specific improvements which have been identified as relatively easily achievable, with modest cost and time, but with tangible user benefits.

In more detail, these options comprise the following elements.

Search Catalogues and Union List of Serials services (SC/ULS)

• tasks identified in the InforM25 maintenance backlog. These tasks are necessary to get the services running back at maximum functionality, and are estimated at circa 30 days’ work
• improvements related to the user interface, either in simple “look and feel” terms (e.g. graphics changes, labelling, etc.), or with small changes to the functionality of the user interface (e.g. a single search type/box, clearer results presentation, etc.
• some functional improvements, including attempts to make the interface more consistent with the Google-search approach (including using a single search-box, and improving the display and pagination of results), as well as to streamline the whole process (e.g., removing the “M25 Zone” clickable map)
• merging SC/ULS

Find a Library and Visit a Library services (FAL/VAL)

• previously-begun development works, and the maintenance backlog, both giving substantial benefits to the services as they are now, with a relatively small amount of effort
• reviewing the data held by FaL and possibly adding further categories of data, for example information about library WiFi facilities, “eduroam”, disability access/provision, etc.
• embedding the TfL Journey Planner widget on the individual library pages.

Next steps

Some more work needs to be done to quantify the costs to deliver these improvements and their priority. To achieve this, the Steering Group agreed to set up a small Task and Finish Group (T&FG) as soon as possible to prioritise and order the work and define costs. The Group will comprise a Steering Group champion and members with expertise/knowledge/interest: technical knowledge, project management, marketing, fund-raising/bid-writing. Marketing of the services, once improvements have been made, will be crucial.

The Group will develop, in due course, into an InforM25 Steering Group and should be ready to respond to prospective funding calls that could enable development of the services to a higher level in the future (e.g. InforM25 Plus, Megalib25).

InforM25 Plus is a (working) name that developed over the course of writing the review to refer to a specific set of improvements and additions to how InforM25 works, more specifically, enriching Search Catalogues by improving display of holdings data, utilising Copac (subject to appropriate discussions and agreement) for wider search and better bibliographic data, and improving the presentation of large result sets.

Megalib25 is another (working) name to refer to a specific set of proposed developments to InforM25 motivated by the vision of item-level resource-discovery in the medium- to long-term future and set within the context and framework of the JISC’s Resource Discovery Task Force (RDTF). This would involve re-designing the architecture in such a way that it allows for more substantial use of heterogeneous searching.

Recent Developments/Funding Possibilites

JISC has just issued a Grant Call which is relevant to the larger scale InforM25 plus and Megalib25 options: see JISC Grant call 13/11 Resource Discovery Programme, an extract from which is supplied below http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2011/07/grant13_11.aspx

Deadline for receipt of proposals is 12th September – and slots for discussion with JISC Executive are 11th and 18th August.

`30. The work of the resource discovery taskforce and the Discovery programme has highlighted a number of key areas where there is a need for innovation, problem solving and enhancement to existing services. Alongside this other activities, notably those in the area of digital repository infrastructure have also highlighted similar issues. JISC seeks projects that address these issues. Projects addressing issues not listed here are also welcome, but bidders must ensure they explain how their proposal will contribute to the realisation of the resource discovery taskforce vision.

• Creation of aggregations of metadata to meet a clear use case for a community of users broader than a single institution.
• Enhancements to existing aggregations to enable them to contribute to the implementation of the vision. This can include making open metadata available and addressing the issue of ease of reusability of the metadata.
• New services or enhancements to existing services that make it easier or more efficient for institutions to contribute metadata about their collections to aggregations.
• Services that support the creation of metadata that fits with the Discovery open metadata principles. This can include enhancements to existing systems, services that focus on transforming existing metadata and new approaches such as shared cataloguing services.
• Services that make it easier for institutions to create and publish open metadata about their collections. This can include shared cataloguing services.
• Services to enrich metadata. This could include crowd-sourcing, text-mining, automated metadata enrichment and working with vocabularies or authorities. This could also include services that address issues of data quality.
• Services for students, researchers and teachers that help realise the resource discovery taskforce vision. This can include projects that explore new methods of discovery.
• Services that support the more effective reuse of metadata and how to deal with different resource types in aggregations.
• Services that address metadata pain points in repository infrastructure, for example the creation of quality metadata is challenging and there may be ways to help address this by the creation of open metadata „tools‟ and services.
  

John Tuck
Chair of M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries

August 4th 2011