Microfiche and Digital Scanning Round Table
Microfiche ScannerRound Table
2/19/2009 2-5pm DU
Attendees:
Ellen Greenblatt-Auraria Library; Brice Austin-UC-Boulder;Holley Long-UC-Boulder; Janet Lee-Regis; Samantha Hager-CSL-State Pubs Library; Marit Taylor-Auraria; Joan Lamborn-UNC; Sharon Johnson-USAF; Douglas Johnson-USAF; RobertJackson-DPL-Gov Docs; Peggy Jobe-UC-Boulder; Michael Riberdy-UC-Boulder; RoseNelson-CO Alliance; George Machovec-CO Alliance; Chris Brown-DU; JulieWessling-CSU; Douglas Stehle-UC-HSC; Mark Anderson-UNC; LousieTreff-Gangler-Auraria; Betty Meagher-DU
Purpose of thismeeting:
to find out if there is enough interest among libraries forcollaborative purchase of a mass production microfiche scanner.
Background:
MostAlliance member libraries have microfiche collections that may be difficult toaccess and lend to other libraries because of their format. This has become a general concern amonglibraries as microfiche scanners face obsolescence and patrons continuallyexpect readily available full text materials. Many of these collections contain rich historical primary documents thatare only available in microfiche format. There is a large concern that these materials, although rich in content,are rarely used because they are difficult to access.
The meeting began with a discussion from Peggy Jobe about CUBoulder's microfiche collection. CUBoulder has a microfiche collection of 5 million items. They are also requiredto keep a tangible copy of government documents in fiche or paper format.
Manufactures are no longer making fiche to fiche producers,so it's a concern that microfiche collections may become completelyinaccessible. Purchasing a machine thatdoes mass production printing from microform is expensive so CU brought this tothe Alliance to consider a shared purchase of this high productionscanner. The high production scannerscan replicate both fiche and film.
Peggy described the major collections of microfiche held byCU Boulder. This includes items such asNTIS, Eric documents, statistical information, etc. (refer to handout)
Michael Riberdy from CU-Boulder has done some research onthe 3 leading systems of high performance microform scanners-Mekel, FexScan andWicks & Wilson. He passed out adocument that compares the 3 providers. The three systems have very similar features. However the Mekel Mach VII doesn't have PDFoutput capabilities. All three systems require annual warranty. The price ranges are similar between $55k-$65k.
Michael talked to Mountain States Energy and Echo Concepts,existing users of Mekel and Flexscan. Both companies were pleased with performanceof both units. They use the scanners foraccess level and preservation level materials. The California Digital Library has the Mekel and is pleased with theperformance. The Flexscan can, with an optional adapter, scanmicrofilm.
CU needs a high volume scanner that can handle large volumesof materials.
Questions were raised about the demand for microformmaterials. Even though the currentdemand isn't great, it's likely due to the format. If microform content were available as PDF's,it's expected there would be a much greater demand for this materials becauseit would be in an accessible format.
Workflow Issues
Attendees discussed some of the work flow issues involved inscanning microfiche collections and making them available for request throughProspector. The workflow is contingent on where the scanner is placed, likelyat PASCAL or CU-Boulder. Where thescanner is housed will affect the workload of that particular institution. If it's housed at PASCAL, it's possible theywill need funding for more staff if scanning becomes a high demand service. A request form will need to bedeveloped. There is a daily shuttlebetween UC-Boulder and Pascal. UC-Boulder can pull materials daily so it doesn't matter if the machineis housed at CU or PASCAL. Samantha Hager from State Pubs indicated thatthey would like to have their own staff member use the machine, wherever it ishoused, to digitize their own collections. Perhaps libraries could book themachine in advance if they had a big scanning project. If requests came in while the machine wasbooked, these would take priority.
Peggy suggested a two phase approach to the scanning projectif it were to move forward. The firstphase would include fine tuning procedures, developing a workflow, determiningdemands and use. It would focus ondelivery of documents. Once the firstphase was well underway, then preservation would be taken intoconsideration.
Access andPreservation
Access and storage or preservation are two large issues thatmust be considered in digital scanning and lending of microfichematerials. Items that are in the publicdomain can be turned into digital documents and lent out to patrons. Other collections are subject to copyrightand can only be scanned and lent out, but cannot be stored/preserved longterm. It was important to make thedistinction between these two types of collections.
Chris Brown came up with a model that describes thedifferent levels of access.
Level 1 access forproprietary materials copyright restrictions-fulfill request on a one-offbasis. When a patron requests an item,it is scanned, digitized and transmitted to patron via email or anotherdelivery mechanism. This item is notreproduced or stored.
Level 2 access-Thisapplies to public domain materials. Createbibliographic access. Could be requestedthrough Prospector.
Level 3 access-thisapplies to preservation materials such as state publications. In this instance, the document is preservedfor further use. Create bibliographicaccess. Could be requested throughProspector. Preserved in ADR.
Scanning microform is a great way to share rich collectionsthroughout the state. Some of thesecollections would not have been used had they not been scanned into PDFs.
Libraries may be able to get rid of old microformcollections and increase some of their floor space.
Opportunities/Challengesto Microform Scanner
Some collections have bibliographic access while othersdon't. George mentioned that since wecan load the MARC records for ERIC documents, if this collection was scanned,patrons would be able to get to the content of these ERIC documents through theMARC records. Bibliographic access iskey to making these collections accessible once they are scanned.
Some attendees expressed a concern with a cost/benefitanalysis. There may still be lowdemand for these items, even if they are in PDF format. If the Alliance purchases a scanner, it wouldhave to provide access copies for one time use, but it's also important that itcan be used for preservation.
Use the ADR to leverage this type of scanning project. Can public domain documents be loaded intoADR for preservation and long term access?
Douglas from UC-HSC mentioned the importance of"findablility". He suggested indexingpublic domain collections through Google and making use of the scanned copiesfor document delivery instead of just sending and deleting the work. He also mentionedthat Metadata is important, but we should consider double dipping andleveraging the effort around the ILL/delivery goal here and considersaving/storing/indexing those access-level copies (Level-2 access above forinstance) that are public domain. Douglasnoted that a good scan at 150 to 300dpi with simple title entry along withbeing crawled by the ADR and/or Google would certainly be "good enough" formany users and allow this doc del work to turn into a slow creation of asearchable database which would add overall value to the project to moreparticipants, potentially.
Julie Wessling from CSU noted that they have very low use ofmicrofilm even though they make copies for patrons. In this case, current use of microfilm seemsto be a strong reflection of future use.
Some libraries may not be interested in a group purchase,but would be willing to be billed on a pay per use model. Rob Jackson from DPL mentioned this. There isn't a large use of microfilm atpublic libraries.
USAF might consider purchasing their own scanner. Wouldn't be able to participate in a group purchasedue to federal regulations.
There is a strong barrier to use of microformcollections. Even if these collectionsare rich with primary research materials and historical information, because ofthe format, they are inaccessible to many patrons. There was much discussion and anecdotes aboutthis.
Scanning of microfiche is great PR for library. Patrons no longer have to use the microfilmreaders.
All of the models can accommodate fiche and film. This makesit a much more valuable resource to libraries.
Louise from Auraria mentioned that GPO was looking forpotential scanning partners. This may bea possibility down the road if this machine is purchased.
Before the meeting adjourned, George and Peggy asked thegroup about points to consider in a draft proposal. George is going to write a short draft plan formember council. This will include thingslike upfront costs for project, ongoing costs, annual maintenance, etc.
Points to consider indraft proposal
1. Locations
2. Numbers regarding use of microform (currentlevels of use)
3. Workflow-various channels of how requests cancome in-Prospector, local system, etc.
4. Partners-share the cost and pay-per-use model
5. Who is going to do it and will they chargemoney? PASCAL would require paid staff.
6. Budget-first year and ongoing maintenance.Sinking fund to replace the machine
7. Demo each of the machines (go out to sites thatcurrently use them)
8. Outsourcing costs-probably can't handle one offrequests. Turn around time with massproduction digital scanning
9. Copyright (determined by collection set)