Friday 9 December 2011

Note: The following minutes are unapproved and will be formally agreed at the next meeting of the Steering Group.

Minutes of the meeting held at London School of Economics, Connaught House.

Present: John Gilby (JG), Kitty Inglis (KI), Sandy Leitch (SL), Caroline Lloyd (CL), Antony Loveland (AL), Pete Ryan (PR), John Tuck (JT), Michelle Wake (MW), Julie Brittain (JB).

1. Welcome and any apologies:

Apologies from Bethan Adams (BA), Angus Brown (AB), Ann Murphy (AM), Louise Doolan (LD)

The Consortium expressed sincere thanks to Vicky Falconer (VF) for all her work over the last three years.

2. Minutes of the last meeting and review of actions:

The minutes from previous meeting held on 23rd September 2011 were agreed as a true record.

Actions from previous meeting:

2.1 SL re-registering for Data Protection – We’re ready and cost is £35 annually. LSE is happy with covering employment data and IT security systems. Need to investigate what sort of cookies we use. Actions: JG to summarise details of cookies on all websites; SL to finalise registration 

2.2 CMS – agreed to change CMS ‘estimate’ into a brief for an external contractor to do the piece of work. Action: JG to create CMS work briefing document

2.3 Staffing – Discussion took place on how we fill vacancy created by Vicky’s departure. It was agreed that an M25 Admin temp should be recruited for a period whilst job description for permanent replacement was reviewed and revised. Action: Officers and JG to commence review of job descriptions for the whole Support team.

3. Treasurers Update

Accounts still with Kingston Smith so slight delay due to various illnesses and the fact that we’ve moved to SAGE. Deadline for signing off a/c is twenty eight days before AGM.

Aim to sign off accounts on the Planning Afternoon, 13th January 2012. [Post meeting note: Kingston Smith confirmed approval of accounts on February 2nd 2012.]

4. cpd25 Chair’s Update

All cdp25 records are now in SAGE.

Small number of outstanding invoice bookings from last year coming in but trying to flatten peak of events. Numbers attending are slightly lower in general compared to previous years but specific sessions very popular.

JT and AL met with CILIP – cpd25 article has been written and AL commented not clear what’s happened with M25 article. [Post meeting note: cpd25 article is now scheduled for March publication and M25 for April.]

Good time to analyse attendance over last two years and look for M25 institutions who use cpd25 a lot and similar metrics. May be a case for more targeted marketing in future. There are more attendees from further afield such as Wales, NE than in previous years. Action: AL to coordinate analysis.

5. Planning afternoon (13th January 2012) & Consortium priorities 2011-2012

The discussion focussed on preparation for the January Planning Afternoon agenda. It was agreed that the risk register should be reviewed and a budget report provided; also discussion about InforM25 and SEARCH25 with regard to overseeing future services; promotion of Directors’ Room/Staff Room etc. PR agreed that he would lead on Marketing and KI on Directors’ developments. These two items would feature prominently on agenda. Action: SL and officers to put together agenda and papers for planning afternoon.

6. Conference 2012 update

MW provided update on location (Ravensbourne) and agenda. Good progress being made. It was agreed that way should be found to integrate building into the programme. Action: MW to start contacting speakers now and involve temp ASAP in Jan.

7. SEARCH25 update

JG provided an update on SEARCH 25. The bid to JISC had been successful with November 2011 start, completion due July 2012. A Developer – Graham Seaman – was in post, seconded from RHUL. Partners are LSHTM/CCSD/BBK/IDS/RHUL; Subcontractors are Sheffield University Information School – they will work on search accuracy of system, and SERO – guidelines on freeing up data. Project Plan and technical specification were scheduled to be delivered to JISC by 21/12 with working prototype by March 31 2012. JG drew attention to forthcoming focus groups in Spring 2012.

8. Aggregating M25 digital content

JT drew attention to a conversation with Paul Ayris (UCL) re: possibilities of contributing to Europeana and possible M25 involvement. UCL have an aggregator that M25 could use. Action: JT and one or two colleagues to meet with Paul Ayris and colleagues to take discussions further. MW, AL expressed interest.

9. Task and Finish Group updates

JT’s paper was discussed and consideration was given to prioritization for discussion at planning afternoon. Action: JT to revise paper for planning afternoon.

10. M25/MLAG e-books survey

The e-books report and accompanying paper on a patron driven acquisition approach were discussed The SG welcomed the documents and noted the high number of survey responses both from M25 Consortium and MLAG members. The SG was not, however, in a position to support any specific proposals until further clarification on many points had been provided. The SG also sought more detail and feedback on the matters listed below:

  1. There was no breakdown of type of institutions that had responded. Can Task Force provide this?
  2. How will smaller institutions get their fair share of content?
  3. Institutions in the main will be looking at extending their existing e-book collections. How will this fit with that approach
  4. Money will already have been committed by a number of institutions to PDA schemes – how will this fit with this kind of consortia approach?
  5. At what level is the scheme aimed at postgrad research, undergrad? More clarity needed.
  6. Will the initiative lead to books that are not currently available electronically being digitised? This would be welcomed as there is an unequal spread of e-books across disciplines.
  7. Are the needs identified very different from sector-wide needs?
  8. Will there be duplication of content?
  9. How does SCONUL fit in? On this it was suggested that there should be dialogue with SCONUL as well as LUPC/SUPC.
  10. If SCONUL is planning anything at national level could M25/MLAG act as a pilot?
  11. It was agreed that the Task Force needs to be afforded to take this forward. Sandy Leitch is going to investigate at Kingston and it was suggested that we approach Joe Honeywill at Senate House Libraries. JT can do this.
  12. Suggested that we should revisit the University of London Digital Platform report and section on e-books
  13. More clarity needed on processes and how the intended scheme would work.
  14. General comment on what the benefits are through this approach. Why is this better?
  15. In response to some of the comments raised by LUPC, the Steering Group agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to these.

Action: John Tuck, on behalf of the Task Group, agreed to convene a meeting of the Group in January to consider these points and to deliver feedback

11. Information Handling: Update

JB recounted purpose of work with Jane Falconer from LSHTM to use RIN and run a workshop. For various reasons, e.g. changing role of RIN, timescale etc, this had not progressed. It was agreed that Jane Falconer should be asked to take this forward in the New Year. Action: Caroline Lloyd to raise with JF.

12. City Read 2012

JT drew attention to three M25 libraries taking part in City Read in 2012 as part of celebrations of bicentenary of birth of Charles Dickens. He asked whether there were possibilities of M25 financial support. It was agreed that JT should contact City Read to see if there was a case for a contribution, e.g. up to £1,000 from the Consortium which would lead to some publicity for the M25 Consortium. Action: JT to contact City Read.

13. Any other business

The SG offered their sincere thanks to Julie Brittain for all her contributions to the work of the Consortium over the last four years and wished her well for her new job.

Summary of Actions

  • Action 2.1: JG to summarise details of cookies on all websites’ & SL to finalise registration.
  • Action 2.2: JG to change CMS ‘estimate’ into a brief for an external contractor to do the piece of work.
  • Action 2.3: Officers and JG to meet concerning future staffing requirements and job descriptions; JG to progress appointment of temp.
  • Action 4: AL to coordinate analysis of attendance at cpd25 events.
  • Action 5: SL to draft planning afternoon agenda.
  • Action 6: Conference: MW to start contacting speakers and involve temp ASAP in Jan.
  • Action 8: Digital aggregation: JT et al to take discussions further with UCL. MW, AL expressed interest.
  • Action 9: JT to revise Task and Finish Group priorities paper for planning afternoon.
  • Action 10: JT and e-book Task and Finish Group to address questions from SG feedback and to report back to SG;  KI & SL to see if colleagues would be willing to join the T & F group.
  • Action 11: CL to speak with Jane Falconer re: Information Handling.
  • Action 12: JT to contact City Read.