Meeting Minutes

Present:Denis Heathcote(Greenwich), Brian Murphy(QMUL), John Gilby(LSE), Stewart Brownrigg(Kent), Jean Sykes(LSE), Di Martin - Chair(Herts)

Apologies:William Marsterson(Mdx), Brendan Casey(SAS), Sarah Gerrard(RHUL), Robert Hall (Surrey)

1. Administrative arrangements

1.1 Minutes of meetings

It was agreed that each meeting would be minuted by members in turn. The draft minutes would be circulated to all members for correction, subsequently the agreed version would be added to the Consortium web site by John Gilby for wider availability. DH agreed to take notes for this first meeting.

Action: DH, DM, JG

1.2 Email list

It was agreed to discontinue the previous M25LINK-BOARD email list and set up a new list under the name M25 RDWG with the revised membership.

Action: JG

1.3 Reporting

The Group will report to the M25 Steering Group.

Action: DM

2. Terms of Reference and Membership

2.1 Terms of Reference

The draft terms of reference were considered and agreed with the following amendments

1. Term 1 to read 'To contribute to the M25 Consortium Development Plan through the development, promotion and implementation of a coherent programme of resources discovery, resource sharing, resource management and co-ordination to support learning, teaching and research'
2. A new Term to be inserted as new Term 3 ' To oversee and monitor the work undertaken by the M25 Systems Team funded by the Consortium'.
3. To amend Term 8 to read 'To identify funding opportunities to support M25 resource discovery developments and services'

Action: DM

The revised agreed Terms of Reference are attached to these notes.

2.2 Membership

The membership was agreed as proposed. It was agreed that the Group would need to ensure good liaison with the activities of other Consortium Working Groups, but that there was already a reasonable degree of shared membership. Additional members could be considered should the need arise. The membership of any Task Groups set up by the Group to consider specific issues would also provide opportunities for input from wider respresentation across member institutions.

3. Critical appraisal of the Action Plan 2002/2003

Each line of the Action Plan was briefly considered to review its relevance, progress and future prospects as follows:

3.1 InforM25

It was agreed that

1. InforM25 usage data and knowledge of its visibility within member institutions was required to inform decisions to assess and target future effort
2. Action was needed to raise the profile of InforM25 amongst academic staff and students. The possible benefit of timing this to coincide with the launch of SCONUL Research Extra was noted.
3. There were no immediate prospects of portal products rendering InforM25 redundant in the immediate future, so development and support needed to be maintained. This situation would need to be reviewed when other portal products become more embedded in member libraries. An annual review of the Consortium web-based services might be a useful process.
4. JG and JS would jointly prepare a position statement of the various liaisons with other organisations, groups and initiatives.

Action: JS, JG

3.2 Value-added services

The good progress with AET was noted, but progress with Docusend was slow and as yet there was nothing to demonstrate. The whole area of document delivery was in a state of flux, and little by way of settled policy from the BL. The JISC requested investigation on single item document delivery was noted.

3.3 / 3.4   ULS / National developments

ULS was being maintained but not extended. It was agreed that this whole area should be reviewed when the future of SUNCAT becomes known.

3.5 Review M25Link Project Board

Completed.

3.6 MASC25

It was agreed to ask Paul Ayris for a report on the outcome of funding bids for MASC25 extension and the implications for special collections outside UL. A demonstration of MASC25 to date was identified as useful for the next meeting.

Action: DM

The Group also noted the importance of considering more fully the co-ordination of the activities of AIM25 and MASC25 in terms of membership and Consortium web presence.

3.7 Find it in London

The Group noted that the LLNG had wound itself up but that there was a working demonstrator of FiiL to show that the technology is successful. There are no funds at present for its extension to content suitable for a service. It was also noted that LMAL had in effect taken over the work of LLNG although at present lacking direct HE or FE input.

3.8 LLDA and Project WILL

The Systems Team provide consultancy support for Project WILL. The Group noted the uncertainty about future direction and liaison given the departure of David Murray and Andrew Stevens from LLDA.

3.9 Collection management

The Group noted the considerable scope for sharing best practice across the Consortium membership, eg in respect of 'server linking' projects.

The Group concluded that the Action Plan needed significant revision and updating. Given the timescale it was agreed to focus on selecting specific areas for further investigation and progression for a 2003/2004 Plan for presentation to the Consortium summer meeting.

4. Priorities for the M25 Systems Team within the current range of tasks

The Group discussed the list of 9 tasks presented by JG. It was agreed that Tasks 1, 2 & 8 should be given first priority, together with maintenance of existing Z servers (part of task 3), second priority to be accorded to task 4 (should AIM25 renew its wish for inter-operability work) and to tasks part 6, and 7. Third level priority should be given to task 3 in respect of new Z servers, 5, part of 6 and 9. If no work could be progressed in respect of task 4, JG reported that there should be sufficient time to complete all the other tasks.

Action: JG

5. Exploration of resource discovery issues over next 3-5 years.

The Group held a short brainstorming session to identify critical issues affecting future developments. The following points were noted.

5.1  The need for a shift in emphasis from a focus on member libraries, library staff and selected groups of users (academic staff, research staff and students) to services and support for all the users of member libraries. The Group needed to be better informed about the ways in which students use learning support services and materials. Some studies into user behaviour were noted and it was agreed to ask Consortium members for assistance in gathering evidence from local surveys and other sources.

5.2  The need to be better informed about linkages with VLEs, MLEs and the relationships of academic libraries with institutional policies and use. The Group noted the possible need for guidelines for local implementation of portals and the mapping of resources according to demand.

5.3  The need to take account of changing patterns of student attendance and expectations, especially in respect of laptop ownership, off-campus use of internet based services, document delivery, payment for services. The declining photocopy usage and increased networked printing usage was noted as evidence of the changing paradigm of student learning.

5.4  The likely demand for end-user delivery to the desktop (or laptop, anytime, anywhere) rather than travel to the point of service.

5.5  The increasing likelihood of student use of competitive commercial options for document delivery and other value-added services.

5.6  The students increasing tendency to see themselves as paying customers puts emphasis on value-added services and service level definitions. Is there a role for the Consortium in helping to manage expectations through a 'Charter' approach to promote the importance of the responsibility of each institution providing support for its learning, teaching and research as well as a consistency of service provision to avoid one institution being played off against another.

5.7  The need to consider relationships with the wider range of organisations FE, business parks, research institutions, NHS, etc

5.8  The need to identify key thrusts for technical developments and possible routes for influencing commercial suppliers to ensure their development plans are fully informed by our requirements and strategic vision.

5.9  The need to focus on developments and strategies of direct benefit to users, that represent good VFM, that are sustainable and avoid or eliminate duplication.

5.10  The need to consider a range of related issues including standards, content for sharing, funding opportunities, etc. DM to summarise key points in short report for M25 Consortium meeting on 24 January 2003.

Action: DM

Next meeting: DM to circulate possible dates in second half of March. Preference for afternoon meetings given travel distances for some Group members. The Group gratefully accepted the offer of the LSE venue for the next meeting.

DH - January 2003