Collection Priorities Subgroup Meeting Minutes

November 1, 2001

Present: Carol Hixson, Mischa Buczkowski, Robin Paynter, Tom Stave
Absent: Faye Chadwell, James Fox, Ed Teague

Review of Criteria

The group reviewed the criteria for ranking collections that had been discussed at the first meeting. Some modifications were made and the criteria were grouped into Primary and Qualifying characteristics. The list of criteria agreed to by the group was:

Primary factors:

The priority requested by the collection curators
What kind of access already exists for the materials (database, printed list, etc.)
Known faculty research interests or known interests at the regional or consortial level (taking into account overall impact, as well)

Qualifying factors:

Ability to provide physical access to materials (service issues, conservation needs, etc.)
Balancing priorities between the major collection areas (so that no single area receives preferential treatment)
Staffing levels and in-house expertise in Cataloging and other departments
Size of the collections when reviewing two or more collections that are of roughly equal priority (Quick wins may boost morale and build momentum)
Opportunities/possibilities for outside funding. The awarding of a grant or other outside funding might raise a collection to a higher priority
Opportunities for regional cooperation, such as through Orbis
Availability of records for use for copy cataloging or for purchase from an outside vendor or existence of a vendor to whom records could be outsourced
Specific user requests, whether generated by collection-level records or through other means

Methodology

After agreeing on the list of criteria to be considered, the group discussed the methodology it would follow in ranking the collections. Hixson noted that what she hoped to get at the end of the process was a list with all collections ranked from 1 to whatever. If some factor for a particular collection changed after the initial ranking by the group, the collection's ranking would be re-evaluated (by this group or another appropriate group) and might be placed higher or lower in the list.

The group determined that it would begin by examining those collections rated as a high or urgent priority by the collection curator. In the first pass, the group would discuss the Primary criteria. Each group member would give the collection a numerical ranking based on the discussion. Subsequently, the group would share their individual rankings for the high priority materials and arrive at a group ranking by discussing the Qualifying criteria. (The collections currently designated on the general survey as high or urgent priority are those beginning on lines 301, 306, 312, 379, 400, 428, 434, 441, 445, 454, 560, 569, 573, 581, 615, and 654.)

When consensus is reached on the high priority materials, the group will proceed to review the medium priority materials according to the same methodology. Following that, the group will consider the collections designated by the collection curators as low priority.

Next meeting

The next meeting will need to be rescheduled since at least three of the group members will be unable to attend. Hixson will email the group to reschedule it.

notes by Carol Hixson

Back to Collection Priorities Subgroup

Maintained by: MSDP Webmaster, msdpweb@uoregon.edu
Last Modified: 11/16/2007