Harmonizing the use of the Alma Retention Functionality for Shared Print materials

See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups

This decision was not officially part of SILS. It is owned by the CDL Shared Print Team and is cross-posted on the Shared Print Models, Policy, and Process and Shared Print in Place Policies pages.

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Status	DECIDED
Description	Harmonize use of item Retention Reason for materials committed to shared print programs to support centralized preparation of annual statistics.
Decision summary
Owning group	CDL Shared Print team + anna.striker@ucop.edu
Approver	Shared Print Strategy Team + OT
Consulted	Shared Print Operations Team, campus Shared Print Coordinators, additional Shared Print Stakeholders, additional SILS groups
Informed	Campus IZ admins, campus technical staff (possibly)
Decision-making process	SILS Operations Center investigates the technical feasibility of centralizing retrospective harmonization work and what timeline that could happen on (if feasible); SPOT investigates policy and implementation options with consultation from other stakeholders and submits a recommendation to SPST; SPST makes decision to submit a recommendation to the SILS Operations Team
Priority	Normal
Target decision date	Mar 1, 2023
Date decided	Mar 20, 2023

Recommendation

The recommendation is for all campuses (including the RLFs) participating in shared print to apply the Committed to Retain flag to all existing and future shared print items, and, using the following controlled vocabulary and program hierarchy, to record in the Retention Reason field which program the item should be counted toward for annual shared print statistics. The Retention Reason does not restrict materials from being committed to multiple shared print programs or initiatives, but rather acts as a statistical category for preparing annual statistics. This recommendation does not preclude using the Retention Reason field for other local needs separate from shared print. This recommendation also does not replace use of the 583 field for shared print disclosure.

ASSUMPTIONS	Most instances of program retention commitment overlaps will occur at the RLFs (e.g., dually committed to WEST Bronze and JACS)
	Most instances of other retention reasons overlapping with shared print commitments will occur at the campuses
	All circulating and building-use-only materials housed in the RLFs are subject to the Persistence Policy.

GOALS

The goal of this harmonization proposal (and the related hierarchy of retention reasons controlled vocabulary) is to facilitate centralized preparation of Shared Print annual statistics by the CDL Shared Print team by creating a standard method for identifying these materials via SILS Analytics.

The overarching goal of gathering and reporting statistics on items retained for shared print is to broadcast what UC is contributing to the broader community. With this in mind, the hierarchy prioritizes broad collaborations for statistics reporting over smaller/more local programs, even if there are higher levels of validation. This hierarchy does not preclude identifying materials that are retained for multiple programs in other ways, such as by recording multiple programs in 583 disclosure notes.

HIERARCHY RATIONALE	If committed to multiple programs where one has an ongoing financial commitment, select the Retention Reason that includes the ongoing financial commitment (e.g., JSTOR Legacy)
	If committed to multiple programs where there is no ongoing financial commitment, select the Retention Reason that represents the widest access requirements (e.g., WEST materials must be available for lending beyond the UC system)
	If access requirements are equal, select the Retention Reason that represents the highest validation requirements
	If validation requirements are equal, select the Retention Reason that represents the active program
	If program status (active/inactive) is equal, consult the CDL Shared Print Team.

Hierarchy of Retention Reasons (controlled vocabulary)	Campus(es)
JSTOR Legacy	SRLF
WEST Gold	NRLF, SRLF
WEST Silver	NRLF, SRLF
WEST Bronze	NRLF, SRLF, UCI, UCLA, UCR, UCSB, UCSC, UCSD
JSTOR New	SRLF
HathiTrust	NRLF, SRLF, UCM, UCSC, UCSD
FedDocArc	NRLF, SRLF
JACS	NRLF, SRLF
Shared Print Licensed Content	SRLF
Shared Monographic Series Initiatives	UCB, UCD, UCI, UCLA, UCR, UCSB, UCSC, UCSD
Literary Presses Initiative	UCR, UCSD
Cambridge University Press	NRLF, UCI
Canadian Literature	SRLF
Springer	UCM
FedDocArc Microfiche	NRLF
EEBO STC I and II	SRLF

Implementation of this harmonization project includes three steps for campuses:

Campuses should configure the appropriate Retention Reasons as listed above in their local IZs, with UCB also configuring Reasons required for use by NRLF and UCLA configuring Reasons required for use by SRLF (one-time project)
Once configured, campuses should update all existing shared print items that are held locally with the Committed to Retain flag and the appropriate Retention Reason (one-time retrospective project)*
All campuses should integrate use of the Alma retention functionality into their local workflows when committing new materials to shared print, adding the Committed to Retain flag as well as the appropriate Retention Reason to the item record, along with any other metadata updates applied to disclose the materials as retained for shared print (e.g., adding 583 disclosure notes to holdings records) (ongoing)

Campuses are asked to complete this retrospective project and to integrate this new requirement into their shared print processing workflows by May 31. This timeline will allow the CDL Shared Print Team to leverage this new feature to centrally prepare FY23 shared print statistics.

This recommendation does not apply to materials retained locally outside of formal Shared Print agreements (such as donations or materials honoring staff years of service), and is not intended to restrict or limit use of these fields for purposes other than Shared Print.

* Note: The CDL Shared Print Team and SILS Operations Center discussed and explored the possibility of centrally implementing this change ‘remotely’ from outside of the IZ, but ultimately deemed this to be infeasible. There is no native mechanism in Alma that allows updating item records without being logged into the IZ; one potential solution was identified that leverages Alma APIs to update item records without being logged into the IZ, but this was deemed to require significantly more effort and time to implement than would locally-implemented projects at each of the campuses.

Impact

Stakeholder group	Impact

Stakeholder group	Impact
CDL Shared Print Team	The CDL Shared Print Team will take on responsibility for preparing annual Shared Print statistics for all campuses and RLFs (ongoing). The CDL Shared Print Team will work with the Shared Print Operations Team (SPOT) and campus Shared Print Coordinators to update the UC Shared Print Disclosure Policy to include this new requirement (one-time project).
Campus and RLF shared print coordinators	Centralized statistics preparation will relieve the reporting burden on campus and RLF staff for this category of collections (ongoing). Campuses and RLFs will revise current shared print processing workflows to include this additional requirement (applying Committed to Retain flag + Retention Reason) for materials committed to shared print programs in the future (ongoing).
Campus technical staff	IZ administrators will need to configure the appropriate Retention Reasons for their campus, listed above (one-time project). Technical staff will need to create sets of current shared print items according to which Retention Reason will be applied, then run Change Physical Items information jobs to apply the Committed to Retain flag and the appropriate Retention Reason (one-time project).

Background

In the August 2022 release, Alma launched a new Item Retention Indication for Managing Collaborative Collections. Items may be marked individually or in bulk by running a job. Users also have the option to include a Retention Reason (Alma provides a pre-configured list, or institutions may configure their own Reasons) and a Retention Note (free text). Applying the retention flag prevents withdrawal of the item, either manually or through a job. Some campuses have already begun using this new functionality to flag shared print and other materials that are retained in the long term and should not be withdrawn from the collection. The new retention flag is indexed in Analytics, opening up new opportunities for centrally gathering and reporting shared print statistics.

Alma August release notes: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2022/August_2022/August_Release_Highlights
Alma Highlights video overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udck_vitgdY

Options Considered - implementation

	Option 1 - local action / status quo	Option 2 - harmonization for campuses only	Option 3 - systemize harmonization

	Option 1 - local action / status quo	Option 2 - harmonization for campuses only	Option 3 - systemize harmonization
Description	Use of the Retention Reason functionality is not harmonized across IZs. Each IZ makes local decisions on managing use of this functionality. The Shared Print Project Team offers recommendations for leveraging the Retention Reason field for shared print.	Use of the Retention Reason functionality is harmonized only for campus collections and is not harmonized for the RLFs. This nuance is captured in an updated UCL Shared Print Disclosure Policy to guide campus record updates for materials added to shared print in the future.	Use of the Retention Reason functionality is harmonized across all IZs and libraries. The Retention Reason is added to an updated UCL Shared Print Disclosure Policy to guide record updates for materials added to shared print in the future.
Pros	Continuity of practice; no additional burden on campuses or CDL at this time	Support for centrally preparing campus annual shared print statistics	Support for centrally preparing all annual shared print statistics; consistency of practice regardless of item location; sets system up to leverage the Retention Reason for other use cases
Cons	No support for centrally managing annual shared print statistics	Inconsistent practice based on location; no support for central preparation of RLF annual shared print statistics; limited opportunities to leverage the Retention Reason for other use cases	Potentially large implementation project

Options Considered - technical

Description	Option 1: Define and harmonize Retention Reason	Option 2: index 583 as a Local Param for Analytics
Pros	Indexed in Analytics Configurable values allows ability to define list of program names that correspond with sp statistics categories Supplements existing sp disclosure information	Leverages existing data in IZ holdings records
Cons	Requires retrospective implementation project Requires changes to disclosure workflows for future shared print commitments Requires defining a controlled vocabulary of program names + hierarchy to guide application	Limited Local Params available, campuses are extremely careful assigning them Swapping Local Params is considered unsustainable (would require regular systemwide coordination, reindexing by ExL, and may break other workflows dependent on existing Local Params) 583$f program information not as granular as required for sp annual statistics

Dependencies

The technical feasibility of centrally implementing a retrospective project to update existing shared print item records is to be determined.
- If it is not feasible on a technical level for CDL to implement this retrospective project, the campuses will need to weigh in on their capacity to implement such a retrospective project. Update 01/2023: The Resource Management: Cataloging & Metadata Operations Subteam was consulted on the anticipated workload of and their capacity to accommodate conducting a retrospective project to update shared print item records. The Subteam provided a very positive response, indicating that this retrospective project would be achievable within current capacity.
- If it is feasible on a technical level for CDL to implement this retrospective project, they will provide a timeline for implementation. If the campuses would like to implement sooner they may. Update 02/2023: Alma does not offer any native mechanisms for updating item information from outside of an IZ. A possible solution was identified that would leverage Alma APIs for ‘remote’ updating of item records, but was deemed to require more effort than a campus-led project.
Potential future impact: Implementing this project is likely to support other needs, e.g., requests for reports of HathiTrust-committed materials or leveraging future Alma system developments that extend shared print functionalities

Questions to consider

Exploratory questions:

What options exist for implementation?
- Can CDL implement this from the Network Zone? If so, what is the timeline for implementation?
  - Answer: No, there is no feasible solution for a CDL-led implementation project at this time.
- What timeline will campuses have to implement if CDL is not able to?
  - Answer: Ideally implementation will be complete before the end of the fiscal year to support centralized preparation of shared print annual statistics for FY23. If campuses are not able to implement before the end of the fiscal year, they will be asked to prepare their shared print annual statistics locally.
- What if campuses do not have the staff resources available to implement within the desired timeframe? Can they write up “readmes” for the CDL Shared Print team to leverage for annual statistics?
  - Answer: If campuses are able to prepare their shared print annual statistics locally via Alma Analytics, this may be feasible if the CDL Shared Print team is able to recreate the results in Network Zone Analytics. Since this would be a temporary solution it is preferable that campuses prepare their shared print annual statistics locally until they are able to implement the harmonization project. If campuses are preparing their shared print annual statistics locally in Alma (not Analytics), it will not be possible for the CDL Shared Print team to recreate the results in the Network Zone, as the NZ does not have access to holdings or item level information.
Is there a limit to the number of Retention Reasons that can be configured at an IZ? Answer: There does not appear to be.
- If each campus will be asked to configure certain Reasons for shared print, will this limit the number of Reasons they can configure for other local needs?
  - Answer: There does not appear to be a limit to the number of Reasons that can be configured in a single IZ.
- Is the length of the Retention Reason text limited? If so, what is the character limit?
  - Answer: There does not appear to be a character limit for configured Retention Reasons.
What Retention Reasons should be defined? Answer: see the Hierarchy of Retention Reasons (controlled vocabulary) above.
- If items are committed for multiple programs/reasons, what is the hierarchy for determining what program they are counted towards in the statistics while still preserving all reasons?
  - See RLF hierarchy for shared print reporting as an example and starting place.
  - What other considerations do campuses have for why items are retained in the long term (non-shared print reasons)?

Action Log

Action/Point Person	Expected Completion Date	Notes	Status

Action/Point Person	Expected Completion Date	Notes	Status
Consultation with SPOT / CDL Shared Print Team		SPOT raised philosophical and operational considerations for further discussion	complete
Consultation with campus SP Coordinators / CDL Shared Print Team		Campus SP Coordinators indicated interest in exploring harmonization options further, but noted that implementation questions would need discussion with other campus stakeholders	complete
Proposal to investigate to SPST / CDL Shared Print Team		SPST indicated interest in pursuing this investigation further	complete
Consultation with CDL SILS Operations Center liaison	12/09/2022	Initial discussion outlining the need and identifying a course of action to investigate implementation options	complete
Consultation with RM WG conveners	01/09/2023	Discussed overall impressions of the amount of work and difficulty level of implementing this project locally, with the Shared Print Team providing guidance on what Reasons each campus should be implementing. Discussed potential other options for achieving the overall goal (supporting centralized statistics preparation). Feedback from full RM group discussion 01/19: “RM just wrapped up our meeting and the consensus is that we are definitely supportive of moving forward with the project. The RM reps just need to speak with their campus shared print folks to make sure there aren’t any unforeseen problems but generally, we all feel like this will be really helpful and there weren’t any immediate concerns around campuses needing to do the work to implement a shared list.”	complete
Define controlled vocabulary and hierarchy for Retention Reasons	02/15/2023	Shared Print Team drafts controlled vocabulary and hierarchy SPOT reviews and comments/makes suggestions Share with SP Coordinators	complete
Harmonization proposal and recommendation	02/15/2022	SP Team drafts Share with SP Coordinators for comment Share with SPOT for comment Share with other SP stakeholders as an FYI/opportunity to comment Share with SPST for decision	complete
Forward recommendation to SILS Ops	02/28/2023		complete