Libraries: DEDCC : Meeting Notes

Meeting Notes > 2009 Minutes

05/20/2009
Meeting Notes
by:Emily Alling

DEDCC/RIO Joint Meeting
May 20, 2009
3:00-4:30 pm
Five Colleges
Present: Rachel Beckwith, Janet Ewing, Bryan Goodwin, Rebecca Henning, Susan Kimball, Beth Lang, Chris Loring, David Podboy, Barbara Polowy, Mary Stettner, Bonnie Vigeland, Emily Alling (minutes)
Purpose of meeting: Discuss the two committees' charges; explore areas of overlap; formulate communication to FCLC.
Summary of discussion:
• The recent focus on OPAC customization/enhancement by both committees has led to overlap and confusion, leading some to wonder if the two committees should merge.
• DEDCC's recent projects have had a heavy public services focus, but this has not always been the case, nor will it necessarily be in the future. DEDCC's charge and activities overlap with potentially every other Five College committee.
• Having a separate task force to deal with OPAC issues, to include cross-functional expertise from systems, reference, and access services, would likely prove more fruitful than the current arrangement, in which solutions are often researched and proposed only to run into technical hurdles or lead to unanticipated consequences. Independently of one another, Stephanie Schmitt and RIO have proposed such a task force.
• There was some sentiment that absent their OPAC activities, RIO's focus would be on scanning the horizon for new and emerging technologies--and that this is wholly subsumed by DEDCC's charge.
• It was pointed out that RIO is more than the OPAC--the OPAC is only one of the many tools that reference librarians and researchers use.
• New activities for RIO could include reexamining the question of collective licensing of resources (possibly in conjunction with other committees); exploring more ways of collaborating on, e.g, staff development, tutorials, virtual reference, instruction, outreach/orientation. Cf. the Tri-College model: http://trilogy.brynmawr.edu/guides/
• Imagining that there were no Five College committees and FCLC was starting from scratch, what committees do we need? Committees can be sorted into two types: functional (working together on shared/centralized systems and/or functions; e.g. Circ), and "think tank" or information sharing committees, capitalizing on the fact that we have a critical mass of libraries of a similar type. DEDCC and RIO seem to fall into the latter group. Are these types of committees advisable? Having a clear charge and mission is important. Directors don't want to send staff to meetings that aren't useful.
• Many feel that it is important to continue to have a committee looking at larger issues without a specific functional or departmental focus or bias.
• Assuming that DEDCC and RIO continue in their current forms, there seems to be room for both to pursue the exploration of new and emerging technologies. Duplication could be avoided by better communication: regular sharing of project lists, occasional joint meetings?
• Each committee feels that its charge should be revisited and updated.
• The review of committee charges is on FCLC's agenda. Their hope is to have a group of viable committees who have meaningful work. It would be helpful for FCLC to have a sense of each group's sentiment.
• RIO's next meeting is June 1; DEDCC's is June 3; FCLC's is June 9. Each committee will summarize their thoughts about updates to their charges and the possibility of the merger or retooled coexistence of DEDCC and RIO, and will share these with FCLC by June 8.


	Meeting Notes > 2009 Minutes 05/20/2009 Meeting Notes by:Emily Alling DEDCC/RIO Joint Meeting May 20, 2009 3:00-4:30 pm Five Colleges Present: Rachel Beckwith, Janet Ewing, Bryan Goodwin, Rebecca Henning, Susan Kimball, Beth Lang, Chris Loring, David Podboy, Barbara Polowy, Mary Stettner, Bonnie Vigeland, Emily Alling (minutes) Purpose of meeting: Discuss the two committees' charges; explore areas of overlap; formulate communication to FCLC. Summary of discussion: • The recent focus on OPAC customization/enhancement by both committees has led to overlap and confusion, leading some to wonder if the two committees should merge. • DEDCC's recent projects have had a heavy public services focus, but this has not always been the case, nor will it necessarily be in the future. DEDCC's charge and activities overlap with potentially every other Five College committee. • Having a separate task force to deal with OPAC issues, to include cross-functional expertise from systems, reference, and access services, would likely prove more fruitful than the current arrangement, in which solutions are often researched and proposed only to run into technical hurdles or lead to unanticipated consequences. Independently of one another, Stephanie Schmitt and RIO have proposed such a task force. • There was some sentiment that absent their OPAC activities, RIO's focus would be on scanning the horizon for new and emerging technologies--and that this is wholly subsumed by DEDCC's charge. • It was pointed out that RIO is more than the OPAC--the OPAC is only one of the many tools that reference librarians and researchers use. • New activities for RIO could include reexamining the question of collective licensing of resources (possibly in conjunction with other committees); exploring more ways of collaborating on, e.g, staff development, tutorials, virtual reference, instruction, outreach/orientation. Cf. the Tri-College model: http://trilogy.brynmawr.edu/guides/ • Imagining that there were no Five College committees and FCLC was starting from scratch, what committees do we need? Committees can be sorted into two types: functional (working together on shared/centralized systems and/or functions; e.g. Circ), and "think tank" or information sharing committees, capitalizing on the fact that we have a critical mass of libraries of a similar type. DEDCC and RIO seem to fall into the latter group. Are these types of committees advisable? Having a clear charge and mission is important. Directors don't want to send staff to meetings that aren't useful. • Many feel that it is important to continue to have a committee looking at larger issues without a specific functional or departmental focus or bias. • Assuming that DEDCC and RIO continue in their current forms, there seems to be room for both to pursue the exploration of new and emerging technologies. Duplication could be avoided by better communication: regular sharing of project lists, occasional joint meetings? • Each committee feels that its charge should be revisited and updated. • The review of committee charges is on FCLC's agenda. Their hope is to have a group of viable committees who have meaningful work. It would be helpful for FCLC to have a sense of each group's sentiment. • RIO's next meeting is June 1; DEDCC's is June 3; FCLC's is June 9. Each committee will summarize their thoughts about updates to their charges and the possibility of the merger or retooled coexistence of DEDCC and RIO, and will share these with FCLC by June 8.